Discussion Title: Will the Covid-19 pandemic have a lasting impact on society?

1. The Covid-19 pandemic will have a lasting impact on society.
1.1. Con: Educational institutions will not be significantly impacted in the long-term.
1.1.1. Con: The [cancellation](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00786-y) of many academic conferences will have negative long-term consequences on academic progress.
1.1.1.1. Pro: A scientific meeting on Covid-19 was [cancelled](https://qz.com/1816054/a-conference-on-coronaviruses-is-cancelled-due-to-coronavirus/) in March 2020 due to the pandemic. This limits the discussion for cures to be found for such pandemics in the future.
1.1.1.2. Pro: In March 2020, the annual [Future of Individualized Medicine conference](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/story/2020-03-06/major-science-conferences-canceled-at-ucsd-scripps-research-due-to-coronavirus) was cancelled in San Diego.
1.1.1.3. Pro: Several UN meetings for tackling global warming were either postponed or [cancelled](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coronavirus-spurs-mass-cancellation-of-climate-meetings/) in March 2020. This is likely to have delayed the rolling out of much-needed reforms.
1.1.1.3.1. Con: These meetings are largely [postponed](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/06/23/no-un-climate-talks-held-2020-interim-meeting-postponed/) rather than cancelled, and will take place at a later date.
1.1.1.3.1.1. Con: While these meetings may take place in the near future, there is not much room for delays, due to the [urgency](https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2020/09/25/new-york-citys-latest-attraction-a-climate-clock-that-counts-down-to-doomsday/) of the climate crisis.
1.1.1.3.2. Con: Some of these meetings have gone [online](https://www.unenvironment.org/events/regional-consultative-meetings/regional-consultative-meeting-africa-2020), with delegates attending virtually.
1.1.1.3.3. Pro: Lots of progress on international climate agreements comes from the [personal relationships](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/barack-obama-used-race-personal-chemistry-january-26-visit-to-win-narendra-modi-on-paris-climate-deal-says-ex-aide/articleshow/69208202.cms?from=mdr) developed between world leaders at these summits. This is not an option if the meetings are not taking place.
1.1.1.4. Pro: Such conferences are [essential](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-is-hampering-science/) for the exchange and development of new ideas, as well as for collaboration efforts between different scientists.
1.1.1.4.1. Pro: The [Future of Experimental Technology conference](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/story/2020-03-06/major-science-conferences-canceled-at-ucsd-scripps-research-due-to-coronavirus) was cancelled, which could have been a productive meeting of minds on the impact of artificial intelligence on humans.
1.1.1.4.2. Pro: Setting up large-scale projects, such as designing spacecraft or detecting gravitational waves, [require](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-is-hampering-science/) in-person collaboration that can only be initiated at such meetings.
1.1.1.4.3. Pro: Students and early-career researchers [rely on](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-is-hampering-science/) meetings to find jobs and make their work known.
1.1.1.4.3.1. Con: Since all students and early-career researchers will be impacted in similar ways by the pandemic, they will not be individually disadvantaged by their peers getting ahead of them.
1.1.1.5. Con: Physical conferences can be inaccessible for certain organizations and researchers; moving away from these would be a positive long-term change.
1.1.1.5.1. Con: A significant part of [knowledge exchange at academic conferences](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-is-hampering-science/) happens due to the social dynamics outside of seminars. Virtual conferences fail to provide this.
1.1.1.5.2. Pro: Many international conferences have gone [online](https://icml.cc/Conferences/2020) since the beginning of the pandemic, making them more accessible.
1.1.1.5.2.1. Con: Many organizers are considering making online conferences a [permanent fixture](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/352213) in the future, adopting a hybrid model of hosting conferences. This would constitute a lasting impact.
1.1.1.5.2.2. Pro: After cancelling its conference in March 2020, [the American Physical Society \(APS\) arranged virtual meetings](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-is-hampering-science/) where presenters gave their talks through videoconferences.
1.1.1.5.2.3. Pro: Conference presentations could be videoed instead and shared with would-be attendees.
1.1.1.5.2.3.1. Pro: This would enable more people to attend, and contribute to a more diverse field of researchers, as financial and geographic constraints would play less of a role.
1.1.1.5.3. Pro: Researchers from resource-poor universities and those with disabilities have conventionally [had difficulty](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00786-y) accessing conferences.
1.1.1.5.4. Pro: Researchers with children have conventionally [had difficulty](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00786-y) accessing conferences due to a lack of day-care provisions.
1.1.1.5.5. Pro: Researchers from countries that have travel restrictions imposed upon them [have difficulty](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00786-y) accessing conferences.
1.1.1.5.6. Pro: Many of these changes have been called for over the last two decades by scientists within the community and had so far gone [unheeded.](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00786-y)
1.1.1.6. Pro: The [FG Agility Conference](https://www.f5.com/agility), which provides insight into emerging technologies and their management, was cancelled. This conference facilitates discussions between customers, partners, and employees to improve services and security for enterprise-grade apps.
1.1.1.7. Con: Academic conferences have little positive social impact anyway because in practice [they do little to advance knowledge](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/conferences-mean-high-times-low-returns#survey-answer).
1.1.1.7.1. Pro: Academic conferences occur in excessive numbers and are often unnecessary to the point that the scientific community has been accused of "[conference tourism](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669580108667414)". The cancellation of these conferences is likely a good thing.
1.1.1.7.1.1. Pro: Conference tourism [contributes to](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09669580108667414) environmental degradation.
1.1.1.8. Con: If cancelled with sufficient notice, the money spent on academic conferences could be injected back into academia.
1.1.1.8.1. Con: Many meetings have not had enough notice to cancel in time for financial losses to be minimized.
1.1.1.8.1.1. Pro: Many hotels and travel companies have not given [refunds](https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200318140321324) to attendees of cancelled conferences. This limits individual researchers' ability and motivation to remain engaged in academia.
1.1.1.8.1.2. Pro: The American Physical Society's March meeting was [cancelled](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-is-hampering-science/) at the last moment.
1.1.1.8.2. Pro: Putting on a single conference can [cost tens of millions](https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/aug/30/expensive-academic-conferences-give-us-old-ideas-and-no-new-faces).
1.1.1.8.2.1. Pro: A World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006 cost [$205 million](https://www.springer.com/la/book/9783540372233).
1.1.2. Pro: Educational institutions can utilise technology to mitigate the impact of the pandemic.
1.1.2.1. Pro: Cultural industries can utilise technology to stay economically afloat and continue to engage with the public.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: Many stage shows, operas, and musicals are being [streamed live](https://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/news/stage-shows-musicals-opera-free-stream-online_51198.html). This will likely mitigate any negative impacts on cultural institutions.
1.1.2.1.1.1. Con: With the availability of these performances online, [less people](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/05/theater-survive-coronavirus-art-west-end-broadway/611338/) will want to go to see them in person even after the pandemic. This does not bode well for the future of these industries.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1. Con: Many cultural productions are reciprocal and thus require an audience, such as comedy, music concerts, etc. Livestreams are not a substitute.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Musicians make a living touring and earning through ticket and merchandise sales.
1.1.2.1.1.2. Pro: Concerts of all genres are being [streamed live](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/17/816504058/a-list-of-live-virtual-concerts-to-watch-during-the-coronavirus-shutdown) for the public.
1.1.2.1.2. Pro: Many museums offer [virtual tours](https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/04/02/these-museums-are-offering-free-virtual-tours/).
1.1.2.2. Pro: There are ways to mitigate the impact of cancelled conferences on the academic community.
1.1.2.2.1. Con: Many academic conferences were [cancelled](https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2020/03/list-of-cancelled-2020-social-science-conferences/), and not continued in the online space.
1.1.2.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.5.2.
1.1.2.2.3. Pro: Scientific research can still be published online, so the cancellation of conferences should not be too disruptive to scientific progress.
1.1.2.2.3.1. Con: Research is published once it has been successfully conducted; conferences allow for new ideas and new research goals to be set up, which cannot be done through papers alone.
1.1.2.2.3.1.1. Pro: There are challenges in conducting trials, which have been mitigated through [technological advances](https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-020-04711-6); something which could have a lasting impact.
1.1.2.2.3.1.2. Con: Many trials can be [pre-registered](https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/writing-resources/trial-registration), which involves publishing an overview of the proposed design and methodology.
1.1.2.2.3.2. Con: Publishing scientific research is [extremely expensive](https://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676), so many researchers are unlikely to opt to publish their research in response to the cancellation of conferences.
1.1.2.3. Con: Schools and universities have had to [switch](https://www.businessinsider.com/major-colleges-and-universities-going-remote-over-coronavirus-fears) to online education. Utilizing technology to cope with the pandemic will positively impact education and learning in the long term.
1.1.2.3.1. Pro: It will be easier to monitor and scrutinize teaching practices so that they can be improved now that education is remote.
1.1.2.3.1.1. Pro: Parents of younger students will be able to see first-hand how teachers teach and make recommendations and complaints on that basis.
1.1.2.3.1.2. Pro: Remote classes can be recorded and easily accessed, making it easier for administrators to evaluate the teaching method of teachers.
1.1.2.3.1.2.1. Pro: A [study](https://www.eschoolnews.com/2016/02/25/the-benefits-of-adding-video-to-teacher-evaluations/) found that video recordings contributed to the professional development and effectiveness of teachers, as well as the quality of their evaluations.
1.1.2.3.2. Pro: Going remote will help teachers [familiarize themselves](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/will-coronavirus-make-online-education-go-viral) with technology, which will facilitate their ability to incorporate online learning in their classrooms in the future.
1.1.2.3.2.1. Pro: Many teachers have become [more tach-savvy](https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/06/03/it-was-a-bumpy-ride-but-virtual.html) as a result of the hands on practice caused by remote learning.
1.1.2.3.3. Con: With remote learning, teachers can [no longer](https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-03-02-students-are-lonely-what-happens-when-coronavirus-forces-schools-online) accurately assess the interest and understanding generated from their teaching. This makes adapting their teaching style to that of students much more difficult.
1.1.2.4. Pro: Many academics can continue to work remotely during the lockdown phase.
1.1.2.4.1. Pro: There are an array of [academic databases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_databases_and_search_engines) that can be accessed online.
1.1.2.4.2. Pro: Postdocs can be [just as productive](https://www.chronicle.com/article/WhyHow-You-Should-Let/248084) when using telecommuting technologies.
1.1.2.4.3. Con: Many academics that are reliant on specialized facilities to complete their work will not be able to work remotely.
1.1.2.4.3.1. Pro: Some academics have [paused](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/updated-labs-go-quiet-researchers-brace-long-term-coronavirus-disruptions) or stopped research experiments.
1.1.2.4.3.2. Pro: At Harvard University, research labs were closed for all purposes that were not deemed essential, [until early June](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/06/harvard-restarts-scientific-research/).
1.1.2.4.4. Con: Most research work involving field studies need to be delayed until the pandemic subsides.
1.1.2.4.4.1. Pro: Many [doctoral students](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/interrupted-fieldwork-could-mean-terminated-careers-phd-students) have been forced to halt or delay their field work due to the pandemic.
1.1.2.4.4.2. Pro: [Hundreds to thousands of projects](https://www.arctictoday.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-has-halted-most-us-arctic-field-research-for-2020/) are estimated to have been paused as a result of the pandemic.
1.1.2.4.4.2.1. Pro: [Long-term research](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/interrupted-fieldwork-could-mean-terminated-careers-phd-students) has been disrupted due to the pandemic.
1.1.2.4.4.2.2. Pro: US Arctic Field Research has been [virtually halted](https://www.arctictoday.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-has-halted-most-us-arctic-field-research-for-2020/) for the entirety of 2020.
1.1.2.4.4.3. Pro: The loss of consistent, up-to-date data [negatively impacts](https://www.arctictoday.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-has-halted-most-us-arctic-field-research-for-2020/) the ability to formulate policies.
1.1.2.4.5. Pro: Academics [continue to publish](https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus) papers and research about the ongoing concerns, especially the Covid-19 pandemic. This will enrich the material available in the long-term.
1.1.2.4.5.1. Pro: Coronavirus experts have [intensified their research](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/journals-peer-reviewers-cope-with-surge-in-covid-19-publications-67279) programs in response to the outbreak.
1.1.2.4.5.1.1. Pro: [Review Commons](https://www.reviewcommons.org/) is an organization launched in response to the pandemic that peer-reviews manuscripts before they are submitted to journals to [more rapidly](https://asapbio.org/review-commons-9-months) review and provide feedback for researchers.
1.1.2.4.5.2. Con: Only about [2%](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/journals-peer-reviewers-cope-with-surge-in-covid-19-publications-67279) of Coronavirus-related papers are being accepted by journal editors. Consequently, much of the material is not being published.
1.1.2.4.5.2.1. Con: As the pressure on editors subsides, they may publish more Coronavirus-related papers, so any as-yet-unpublished material can still be of use in the long-term.
1.1.2.4.5.2.2. Con: A study found that Coronavirus-related papers were published [twice as quickly](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.045963v1) as those on any other subject matter.
1.1.2.4.5.3. Con: There has been a [marked decline](https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/decline-women-scientist-research-publishing-production-coronavirus-pandemic) in women's research production since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.1.2.4.5.3.1. Pro: Male researchers are four times [more likely](https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/decline-women-scientist-research-publishing-production-coronavirus-pandemic) to have a partner engaged in full time domestic care than their female colleagues.
1.1.2.4.5.3.2. Pro: Women are [more likely](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099\(20\)30568-5/fulltext) to shoulder the responsibilities of domestic work while at home.
1.1.2.4.5.4. Con: The nature of scientific publishing is evolving in response to the pandemic.
1.1.2.4.5.4.1. Pro: The rising popularity of [preprint servers](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01520-4) is ensuring that research, even when unpublished, is made available.
1.1.2.4.5.4.2. Pro: The publishing of [open data](https://theconversation.com/science-publishing-has-opened-up-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-it-wont-be-easy-to-keep-it-that-way-142984), which other researchers can freely read and reuse, has taken root within the scientific community.
1.1.2.4.5.4.2.1. Con: There is still a lack of commitment and funding for initiatives like this [going forward](https://theconversation.com/science-publishing-has-opened-up-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-it-wont-be-easy-to-keep-it-that-way-142984), and so it might not stay the same after the pandemic.
1.1.2.4.5.4.3. Con: This is likely to revert to its traditional form after the pandemic, as these changes have resulted in a [lowered standard](https://sciencebusiness.net/covid-19/news/covid-19-pandemic-leads-flood-useless-science) of research.
1.1.2.5. Con: Many schools do not have the resources or procedures in place to make the switch to online education effective.
1.1.2.5.1. Con: Many school closures coincided with the Easter holidays. Therefore, many teachers will have the Easter holidays to prepare and transition to online teaching.
1.1.2.5.1.1. Pro: Most schools in [Germany](https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-03-13/german-state-of-bavaria-closes-schools-to-slow-coronavirus-epidemic-dpa) were shut until after the Easter holidays in April.
1.1.2.5.1.2. Pro: [Scotland](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-all-schools-in-scotland-and-wales-set-to-close-by-friday-11959688) brought forward the Easter holidays to coincide with the start of school closures.
1.1.2.5.2. Con: For some schools, whether the online education provided is effective will not materially matter because some governments have [cancelled all exams](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-uk-schools-to-close-from-friday-11959769) and assessments anyway.
1.1.2.5.2.1. Pro: The second wave once more [forced the closure](https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20201127145513696) of schools in many countries in Asia.
1.1.2.5.3. Pro: Traditional educational institutions are too slow for digital change; the slow pace of change in academic institutions globally is lamentable, with centuries-old, lecture-based approaches to teaching, entrenched institutional biases, and outmoded classrooms.
1.1.2.5.3.1. Con: Covid-19 has become [a catalyst](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-020-09477-y) for educational institutions worldwide to search for innovative solutions in a relatively short period of time.
1.1.2.5.3.2. Pro: According to estimates from April 2019, of all the economic sectors, education was the [least digitized.](https://apps.bea.gov/scb/2019/05-may/0519-digital-economy.htm)
1.1.2.5.4. Pro: Many schools [do not have](https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2020/03/30/hackney-primary-schools-urgent-appeal-laptops/) a sufficient number of laptops to distribute to their students.
1.1.2.5.5. Pro: Teachers may not have the knowledge to operate online classroom tools effectively.
1.1.2.5.5.1. Con: The average age of a teacher in the OECD is [43 years old](https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/our-research/data-bytes/the-average-age-of-teachers-in-secondary-schools/). Accordingly, it is likely that they are sufficiently technologically knowledgeable to acquire the skills to operate online classroom tools.
1.1.2.5.5.2. Pro: The lack of this knowledge has meant that teachers had a [steep learning curve](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/apr/21/teachers-face-a-steep-learning-curve-as-classroom-/) to overcome.
1.1.2.5.5.3. Pro: The [lack of professional development](https://www.epi.org/publication/the-consequences-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-education-performance-and-equity-in-the-united-states-what-can-we-learn-from-pre-pandemic-research-to-inform-relief-recovery-and-rebuilding/) for teachers to adapt to remote education has made it harder for teachers to bridge this gap in knowledge.
1.1.2.5.6. Pro: Lesson plans are usually developed with the assumption that learning will take place in a classroom.
1.1.2.5.6.1. Con: There are [guides](https://fcit.usf.edu/distance/chap2.htm) available to help teachers develop lesson plans for remote learning.
1.1.2.5.7. Con: Some schools are [receiving support](https://nltimes.nl/2020/03/30/amsterdam-sponsors-3000-laptops-distance-learning-coronavirus-crisis) so they are better able to provide their pupils with the resources needed to make a transition to online education.
1.1.3. Con: Educational institutions are facing unprecedented levels of disruption.
1.1.3.1. Pro: This disruption is unnecessary, [as evidenced](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europe-schools-covid-open/2020/12/01/4480a5c8-2e61-11eb-9dd6-2d0179981719_story.html) by schools in Europe that remained open with little fallout during the second wave.
1.1.4. Con: Educational institutions will suffer significant financial harm.
1.1.4.1. Pro: Many museums and galleries are [facing losses](https://www.europanostra.org/europa-nostra-launches-wide-consultation-on-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-heritage-world/) in funding and revenue, which will likely impact their ability to stay afloat in the future.
1.1.4.1.1. Pro: [One-third](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/2020/07/22/coronavirus-museums-fear-permanent-closing-pandemic/5490482002/) of museums feared being unable to reopen in July 2020, since the crisis has been going on for several months.
1.1.4.1.2. Pro: In order to stay afloat, many museums and galleries have needed to [reallocate funding](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/arts/design/met-museum-coronavirus-closure.html), away from future acquisitions.
1.1.4.2. Pro: Closing museums for extended periods of time can have long-term implications for their support base.
1.1.4.2.1. Pro: [Donors and sponsors](http://danamus.es/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/closedtothepublic.pdf) may lose enthusiasm and go elsewhere. \(p. 11\)
1.1.4.2.1.1. Pro: Museums that relied on private funding have been [most affected](https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/NEMO_documents/NEMO_COVID19_Report_12.05.2020.pdf) by the pandemic \(p. 2\)
1.1.4.2.2. Pro: Members may cancel their paid memberships or be disinclined to renew them if they do not feel they can use them.
1.1.4.3. Con: Academia is likely to get greater funding and attention as a result of the outbreak, which will off-set any negative impacts that the outbreak may have.
1.1.4.3.1. Pro: Governments will become more aware of the importance of academia in the modern world and be more supportive of initiatives taken in its name.
1.1.4.3.1.1. Pro: The UK government has stressed on numerous occasions that it is rigorously [following the scientific advice](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/government-response-to-coronavirus-led-by-science-grant-shapps) in its response to the outbreak. This suggests that it has learnt the public importance of science as an academic discipline.
1.1.4.3.1.2. Pro: The UK has announced a [significant increase](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/uk-cues-big-funding-increases-rd) in the budget for research development between 2020-2023.
1.1.4.3.2. Pro: People will come to understand the importance of scientists and to appreciate the advice and expertise scientists offer.
1.1.4.3.2.1. Pro: The first vaccine for Covid-19 was [developed and rolled out](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55227325) in December 2020, amidst [great celebration](https://www.today.com/health/covid-19-vaccine-health-care-workers-share-photos-t204282) and [renewed hope.](https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/hope-relief-covid-19-vaccine-administered)
1.1.4.3.2.2. Con: A [survey](https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/has-the-current-crisis-changed-our-perception-of-science) found that attitudes in France towards scientists remained largely unchanged due to the pandemic.
1.1.4.3.2.3. Con: While a [survey](https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201118/People-positively-view-science-and-scientists-but-do-not-take-them-seriously-in-current-pandemic.aspx) found that people viewed science and scientists more favourably, it discovered that the opinions and expertise of scientists were still not given proportionate importance.
1.1.4.3.2.4. Pro: Given the rise of [anti-vaxxers](https://www.healthline.com/health/vaccinations/opposition) in recent years, this will be a positive shift in the status quo.
1.1.4.3.2.4.1. Con: A [survey](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/partisan-differences-over-the-pandemic-response-are-growing/) found that while public trust in science increased due to the pandemic, this was mostly true for Democrats. Republican, who constitute the [majority of anti-vaxxers](https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-nearly-three-times-more-likely-democrats-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-poll-1502176), did not significantly change their minds.
1.1.5. Pro: In many countries, schools [reopened](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/will-schools-remain-open-during-the-six-week-lockdown-1.4386337) after the first wave of lockdowns, and they remain open as successive lockdowns occur.
1.2. Con: Societies frequently have to deal with naturally-occurring disasters, from which they generally recover quickly. This suggests that societies will be able to recover from a pandemic also.
1.2.1. Pro: Communities hit by the [Indian Ocean tsunami](https://www.britannica.com/event/Indian-Ocean-tsunami-of-2004) in 2004 generally recovered quickly.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Just five years after the devastating tsunami, [normal life had resumed](https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/resilience-and-recovery-ten-years-after-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-summary-results-star-project) with people back in their homes and infrastructure rebuilt.
1.2.1.2. Pro: While those most hard hit by the tsunami experienced more intense symptoms of [post-traumatic stress reactivity \(PTSR\)](https://adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/posttraumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/symptoms), they also had the [fastest pace of recovery](https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/resilience-and-recovery-ten-years-after-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-summary-results-star-project) among those from heavily damaged communities.
1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Within three years of the tsunami, there was [no evidence of heightened PTSR rates](https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/resilience-and-recovery-ten-years-after-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-summary-results-star-project) for communities affected by the tsunami compared to those who were not.
1.2.1.3. Con: There is still a [lingering sentiment](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/23/2004-tsunami-five-years-on) of loss across the communities that have been affected.
1.2.2. Con: Each entirely natural disaster brings communities together to implement loosely coordinated remedies. This disaster is also of political construction, in opposition to the science involved in dealing with the pandemic or even in establishing the scope of the pandemic. This has led to a point where neither vaccine nor social distancing etc may be able to end the pandemic.
1.2.2.1. Pro: The insecurities caused by the pandemic are likely to have increased feelings of [resentment and blame](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/megacities-pandemics-economic-crisis-is-fueling-ethnic-hatred/) between communities.
1.2.2.1.1. Pro: Disagreements on how to deal with the pandemic have created feelings of resentment and blame within communities and between ideologies, primarily regarding rules designed to handle the pandemic.
1.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: By painting this as a political issue, lines have been drawn that will lead to flare ups if something similar happens again.
1.2.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: [Research](https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/political-polarization-did-not-increase-covid-19-stanford-research-finds) suggests that the pandemic has increased political polarization among Republicans and Democrats.
1.2.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: Even the [wearing of masks](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/503456-mask-wearing-becomes-political-even-as-some-governors-ease-resistance) has become a political issue.
1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1. Pro: Many Republicans did not wear masks during the [Capitol siege](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-defends-not-wearing-mask-capitol-attack-lockdown/), and some Democratic lawmakers have ended up contracting the virus. This will serve to deepen resentment.
1.2.2.1.1.1.2.2. Con: Many people will stop wearing masks after the pandemic is over, and so the associated polarization will likely dissipate.
1.2.2.1.1.1.3. Con: [Political polarisation](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/in-a-politically-polarized-era-sharp-divides-in-both-partisan-coalitions/) has been on the rise for a number of years, and as such, it is unclear that the pandemic will change the trajectory of this phenomena in any meaningful way.
1.2.2.1.1.2. Pro: Many people in [Brazil](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blame-poverty-not-the-poor-for-covid-19s-spread-in-brazils-amazon/) blamed the poor, rather than the factors which coerced them to act in certain ways, for the spread of Covid-19.
1.2.2.1.2. Con: In some instances, an increase in the usage of communication technology led to increased [empathy](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577684/full) towards other people.
1.2.3. Con: The [Spanish flu](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/covid-19-how-spanish-flu-changed-world/), which was also a global pandemic, altered the world in fundamental ways. It is likely that the current pandemic will have a similarly lasting impact.
1.2.4. Con: Dealing with such disasters has a number of negative lasting social consequences as well.
1.2.4.1. Pro: Businesses are disrupted in disaster-prone regions, which often leads to greater poverty.
1.2.4.1.1. Pro: In a study on transportation disruptions from the Northridge earthquake in 1995, it was reported that 43% of the businesses surveyed attributed their losses at least partially to transportation disruption \([p. 57](https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/4723/dot_4723_DS1.pdf?)\).
1.2.4.1.2. Pro: The February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, [forced](http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/2013-2/AJDTS_2013-2_Kemp.pdf) the majority of businesses in the center business district to relocate \(p. 15\).
1.2.4.1.3. Pro: There is usually a decline in tourism in areas struck by earthquakes \([p. 9](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/3038/pdf)\).
1.2.4.2. Pro: After Hurricane Ike in 2008, the incidence of distress and depression [increased significantly](https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/dtac/srb-low-ses_2.pdf) \(p. 11\).
1.2.4.3. Con: Even if such measures produce lasting social consequences, it is likely that countries are better prepared to deal with similar disaster outbreaks in the future.
1.2.4.3.1. Pro: Earthquake-prone areas often carry out [drills](https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/earthquakes/prepared.html) in schools and work places to equip people to deal with a crisis.
1.2.4.3.2. Pro: Dealing with disasters encourages businesses to draw up better initiatives such as [disaster risk-informed investment strategies](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/how-can-the-world-better-prepare-for-natural-disasters/).
1.2.4.3.3. Pro: Infrastructure and public utilities in disaster-prone zones are [built to high standards](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/how-can-the-world-better-prepare-for-natural-disasters/) to minimize future losses.
1.2.4.4. Pro: Disasters can cause people to take actions that cause permanent or irrecoverable damage.
1.2.4.4.1. Pro: The spouse of one healthcare worker who died from SARS [attempted suicide](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323309/) at her workplace.
1.2.4.4.2. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic has forced many doctors to [choose](https://www.businessinsider.com/italys-doctors-are-forced-to-prioritize-saving-the-young-2020-3) between who to save and who not to save, meaning that lives lost as a result of such decisions are irrecoverable.
1.2.4.4.2.1. Pro: These decisions on who lives and who dies takes a significant [psychological](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200428-coronavirus-how-doctors-choose-who-lives-and-dies) toll on doctors.
1.2.4.4.2.2. Pro: In March 2020, a shortage of medical supplies and hospital beds forced doctors in [Italy](https://www.businessinsider.com/italys-doctors-are-forced-to-prioritize-saving-the-young-2020-3) to choose which Covid-19 patients to save.
1.2.4.4.2.3. Pro: At the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020, doctors in the UK were [forced to decide](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-outbreak-older-people-doctors-treatment-ethics) which Covid-19 patients to save, in order to best deploy scarce resources and maximize utility.
1.2.4.4.2.3.1. Pro: Months since the pandemic began, in November 2020, this is still an [issue](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/10/aler-n10.html) on the minds of NHS officials.
1.2.5. Pro: Most people who experience natural disasters are [psychologically resilient](https://www.uh.edu/class/news/archive/2017/august-september/natural-disasters-impact-adults/) and recover from this experience quickly.
1.2.5.1. Con: Natural disasters and epidemics in the past have had [long-term psychological impacts](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7429118/) such as addiction, increased anxiety, PTSD, and distrust.
1.2.5.2. Con: Many people face long-term financial challenges that make a quick recovery impossible following disasters. This compromises their psychological resilience.
1.2.5.2.1. Pro: Many people whose homes or businesses are lost to flooding [do not have flood insurance](https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/Long-Term-Recovery-Never-Ends-for-Some-After-Natural-Disasters.html).
1.2.5.3. Pro: Communities with [strong social ties](https://thriveglobal.com/stories/why-some-communities-recover-better-after-natural-disasters/) are psychologically resilient to natural disasters.
1.2.5.3.1. Pro: Even compared to superior physical health or wealth, the only factor that [reduces anxiety](https://thriveglobal.com/stories/why-some-communities-recover-better-after-natural-disasters/) after natural disasters is social unity.
1.2.5.3.2. Con: Few communities have strong social ties anymore.
1.2.5.3.2.1. Con: The pandemic has brought [communities](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/neighbourliness-to-the-fore-its-been-the-highlight-of-our-lockdown) closer together.
1.2.5.3.2.2. Pro: A third of Americans say that they have never interacted with their [next-door neighbour](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/08/why-wont-you-be-my-neighbor/401762/).
1.2.5.3.2.3. Pro: Over half of Britons describe their neighbours as ["strangers"](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britons-neighbours-strangers-uk-community-a8373761.html), with 73% not knowing their neighbours' names.
1.2.6. Pro: People are used to the flu, despite a significant [death toll](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-do-people-die-from-the-flu/) each year.
1.2.6.1. Con: This is, in many ways, the point - if Covid-19 becomes an [endemic](https://theconversation.com/covid-19-will-probably-become-endemic-heres-what-that-means-146435) disease circulating in the community, we'll adapt to it as a new normal. Those adaptations will change our society.
1.2.6.2. Con: Covid-19 is more likely to cause long-term suffering due to its [debilitating](https://time.com/5880191/long-haul-covid-19/) effects, which are not typically present in flu patients.
1.2.6.3. Con: Covid-19 is more likely to cause [extrapulmonary organ dysfunction](https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4677) among those infected than flu.
1.2.6.4. Pro: The yearly flu kills [tens of thousands of people](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/13/21176735/covid-19-coronavirus-worse-than-flu-comparison) every year.
1.2.6.4.1. Pro: The [CDC reports](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-do-people-die-from-the-flu/) that over a three-decade period starting in the mid-1970s, the number of flu deaths in the U.S. ranged from a low of about 3,000 a year to as many as 49,000 in a bad year.
1.2.6.4.2. Con: As of [December 2020](https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid), there are an estimated 1.69 million deaths recorded as a result of Covid-19. This is much higher than even the worst flu season.
1.2.6.4.2.1. Pro: As of September 2020, across the EU it was estimated that around [0.025 people die of flu](https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-09-26/How-lethal-is-COVID-19-compared-to-cancer-flu-and-other-death-causes--U4LJxzQlA4/index.html) every day whereas around 0.75 people die of Covid-19 every day.
1.2.6.4.3. Con: The [mortality rate](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600\(20\)30527-0/fulltext#seccestitle140) for patients hospitalized due to Covid-19 infection is two-times higher than those hospitalized due to seasonal influenza.
1.2.6.4.4. Pro: In [2017](https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/), an estimated 80,000 Americans died of flu and its complications, the disease’s highest death toll in at least four decades.
1.2.6.5. Pro: Not even half of US adults were [vaccinated](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1819estimates.htm) against the flu in the 2018/2019 season, which suggests that people do not view the flu with much serious concern.
1.2.7. Con: Natural disasters cannot appropriately be compared with Covid-19 as natural disasters typically occur in one geographic area while Covid-19 is [a global pandemic](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/).
1.2.7.1. Pro: In the wake of natural disasters, the international community often sends aid to affected areas \([p. 15](https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Foreign-Aid-in-the-Aftermath-of-Large-Natural-Disasters.pdf)\). This will likely occur to a lesser extent in case of the pandemic since almost every country will be reeling from how they themselves have been affected.
1.3. Pro: The pandemic has had a negative sociopolitical impact on society.
1.3.1. Pro: The response to the pandemic by governments in many countries has resulted in an expansion of authoritarian power.
1.3.1.1. Pro: On 30th March 2020, the Hungarian parliament granted Prime Minister Viktor Orban [the power to rule by decree](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/hungary-jail-for-coronavirus-misinformation-viktor-orban) for an indefinite period.
1.3.1.2. Pro: Many [provincial-level administrators](https://www.businessinsider.com/analysis-china-hubei-officials-sacked-xi-jinping-protected-2020-2) of the Communist Party of China in central China were dismissed in February 2020; arguably to protect Xi Jinping from people's anger over the handling of the pandemic.
1.3.1.3. Con: An insufficient response to the pandemic by some authoritarian regimes also provoked strong resistance from people in these countries.
1.3.1.3.1. Pro: The pandemic is likely to have weakened the authoritarian [regime in Iran](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/will-irans-regime-survive-coronavirus/).
1.3.1.3.1.1. Pro: Among other factors, Covid-19 infections have [increased social unrest](https://www.arabnews.com/node/1734016) and organized opposition to the current regime in Iran.
1.3.1.3.2. Pro: Brazilian president [Jair Bolsonaro](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-51955679) faced protests in March 2020 by people unhappy with the manner in which he responded to the pandemic.
1.3.1.4. Pro: In March 2020, the [Iranian government](https://cpj.org/2020/03/iran-bans-printing-of-all-newspapers-citing-spread/) banned the printing of newspapers. Some experts consider this to have negatively impacted freedom of expression.
1.3.2. Con: The pandemic positively impacted global peace by de-escalating conflict among many nations.
1.3.2.1. Pro: In June 2020, a global ceasefire in the aftermath of the pandemic was proposed by the United Nations and was supported by [170 member states](https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1066982).
1.3.2.1.1. Con: Even though a [ceasefire](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/19/us-and-russia-blocking-un-plans-for-a-global-ceasefire-amid-crisis) was proposed and supported, coordinating such a global project was complicated by the fact the pandemic worsened conflict dynamics among many countries.
1.3.2.1.1.1. Pro: Through the pandemic, some permanent members of the [UN Security Council](http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24682) continued to be involved in conflicts in regions such as the Middle East even after the ceasefire was proposed.
1.3.2.1.1.2. Pro: Due to existing conflicts among nations, the [UN Security Council](http://and the difficulty in the UNSC achieving meaningful consensus on the global ceasefire can also be seen as part of the UN's wider lack of a unitary response to the coronavirus pandemic.\[12\]\[24\]) was unable to achieve a meaningful consensus on global ceasefire.
1.3.2.1.2. Con: Some conflicts [continued](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/effects-covid-19-pandemic-peace-and-conflict) in spite of the global ceasefire.
1.3.2.1.3. Pro: The UN's global ceasefire led to the cessation of conflict in places like [Colombia and Cameroon.](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/effects-covid-19-pandemic-peace-and-conflict)
1.3.2.2. Con: The drop in oil consumption caused by the pandemic resulted in an [economic conflict between Russia and Saudia Arabia](https://www.aljazeera.com/program/counting-the-cost/2020/3/15/whats-behind-saudi-arabias-oil-price-war-with-russia) over oil prices.
1.3.2.3. Pro: The global response to the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in greater cooperation between nations.
1.3.2.3.1. Pro: Russia sent [medical aid to Italy](https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/after-china-russia-sends-aid-to-italy-to-fight-virus-20200323-p54ctp.html) to bolster its efforts to fight the pandemic.
1.3.2.3.2. Con: The race for developing and procuring [a vaccine](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/14/vaccine-nationalism-stands-in-the-way-of-an-end-to-the-covid-19-crisis) for Covid-19 has resulted in decreased cooperation among different nations.
1.3.2.3.2.1. Pro: Some [countries](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/russia-s-approval-covid-19-vaccine-less-meets-press-release) rushed to produce a vaccine in a manner that might be detrimental to public health.
1.3.2.3.2.1.1. Pro: Some [experts](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/russia-s-approval-covid-19-vaccine-less-meets-press-release) held the view that Russia's announcement of the vaccine was a PR stunt and wasn't grounded on scientific research. This can diminish people's faith in the safety of vaccines.
1.3.2.3.2.2. Pro: Some governments have [purchased vaccines](https://theconversation.com/why-vaccine-nationalism-could-doom-plan-for-global-access-to-a-covid-19-vaccine-145056) at the cost of leaving poorer countries without vaccines. This is likely to create a long-term disparity in public health between rich and poor countries.
1.3.2.3.2.2.1. Pro: There are [storage requirements](https://in.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-logistics/delivering-super-cooled-covid-19-vaccine-a-daunting-challenge-for-some-countries-idINKBN25S417) associated with many of the leading vaccines which could further prejudice the access of developing countries to adequate doses.
1.3.2.3.2.3. Con: The [global race for vaccination](https://www.who.int/news/item/24-08-2020-172-countries-and-multiple-candidate-vaccines-engaged-in-covid-19-vaccine-global-access-facility) has seen scientific cooperation among countries at an unprecedented level and scale.
1.3.2.3.2.3.1. Pro: COVAX, a global initiative by the [World Health Organization](https://www.who.int/news/item/24-08-2020-172-countries-and-multiple-cadidate-vaccines-engaged-in-covid-19-vaccine-global-access-facility), saw around 172 countries coming together to provide equitable access to effective vaccines worldwide.
1.3.2.3.2.4. Pro: Countries like [China](https://merics.org/en/short-analysis/chinas-vaccine-diplomacy-assumes-geopolitical-importance) and [Russia](https://www.cfr.org/blog/russian-disinformation-popularizes-sputnik-v-vaccine-africa) are looking to use vaccines as an extension of their foreign policy.
1.3.2.3.2.4.1. Pro: China is offering their vaccines to [low income countries](https://merics.org/en/short-analysis/chinas-vaccine-diplomacy-assumes-geopolitical-importance) as a priority, hoping to ingratiate themselves with such countries in the long term.
1.3.2.3.2.4.2. Con: The strategy of using vaccines as a foreign policy tool faces many hurdles, such as the success of vaccines in late-stage trials.
1.3.2.3.3. Con: Debates over how to respond to the pandemic increased the rift between the [Northern and Southern countries](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-pandemic-europe-north-south-eurobond/) in the EU.
1.3.2.3.4. Pro: China sent Personal Protective Equipment, such as surgical masks and N95 masks to EU countries like [Italy](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_600) and [Ireland](http://ie.china-embassy.org/eng/zagx/t1792773.htm).
1.3.2.3.4.1. Con: Much of the aid sent by China was not to an appropriate [standard](https://www.thejournal.ie/hse-ppe-5065906-Apr2020/).
1.3.2.4. Con: The pandemic is likely to have worsened relations between [Japan and South Korea](https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/covid-19-aggravates-an-already-tense-korea-japan-relationship/).
1.3.2.5. Con: The pandemic has weakened an already tense relationship between the [US and China](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/world/americas/UN-Trump-Xi-China-coronavirus.html).
1.3.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.1.
1.3.4. Pro: The response to the pandemic has had a negative impact on education, which is likely to have long-term consequences.
1.3.4.1. Pro: The scope of Covid-19 related school closures is [unprecedented](https://www.brookings.edu/research/covid-19-and-school-closures-what-can-countries-learn-from-past-emergencies/), which will have long term implications for students.
1.3.4.1.1. Pro: Almost [862 million schoolchildren](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/03/18/nearly-half-of-worlds-children-out-of-school-due-to-coronavirus/#6795b0407ac0) - half of the world’s student population - have had their school routines interrupted by Covid-19.
1.3.4.1.2. Pro: Going remote will disadvantage students.
1.3.4.1.2.1. Pro: The digital divide will widen.
1.3.4.1.2.1.1. Pro: Most schools in affected areas are finding [stop-gap solutions to continue teaching](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/will-coronavirus-make-online-education-go-viral), but the quality of learning is heavily dependent on the level and quality of digital access. After all, [only around 60%](https://www.invespcro.com/blog/world-population-online/) of the globe’s population is online.
1.3.4.1.2.1.2. Pro: The less affluent and digitally savvy individual families are, the further their children are left behind. When classes transition online, these children [lose out more](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-13/online-learning-fails-low-income-students-covid-19-left-behind-project) because of the cost of digital devices and data plans.
1.3.4.1.2.1.3. Con: The pandemic has brought into light the consequence of the digital divide, which in turn has [created the impetus](https://apps.bea.gov/scb/2019/05-may/0519-digital-economy.htm) to bridge it \(p. 3\).
1.3.4.1.2.1.4. Pro: Many students [cannot access](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/asia/remote-school-education-intl-hnk/index.html) remote education platforms and will not be able to keep up with their peers.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.1. Con: Measures are being put in place to try and improve access to the internet for such students.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.1.1. Pro: Schools and libraries [are offering](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aepp.13104) wireless internet access to children so that they can attend classes and complete their school work.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.1.2. Pro: [Fire departments](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aepp.13104) have made internet access publicly available for students.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.1.3. Pro: Some schools are [placing routers on buses](https://news.wbfo.org/post/wnys-rural-schools-work-bridge-digital-divide) to provide students with Wi-Fi access
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.1.4. Con: There are a number of [challenges](https://www.edweek.org/technology/schools-handed-out-millions-of-digital-devices-under-covid-19-now-thousands-are-missing/2020/07) faced by these sorts of policies, including the funding, management and tracking of devices which are loaned out.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.2. Pro: Many students do not have access to a [stable internet connection.](https://www.theedadvocate.org/the-absence-of-internet-at-home-is-a-problem-for-some-students/)
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.2.1. Pro: [Three million](https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/three-million-us-students-lack-home-internet/4958210.html) students in the US lack access to the internet.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Con: There are [76 million students](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/school-enrollment.html) enrolled in the US education system, so the 3 million lacking internet access represent just 0.4% of the student population.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.2.1.1.1. Con: In absolute terms, 3 million students foregoing access to education is still extremely undesirable.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.3. Pro: Many students do not have access to [laptops and computers](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/many-secondary-students-lack-access-to-online-learning-amid-covid-19-pandemic-1.4367612) that they can use.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.4. Con: Students can access remote education platforms using their smartphones.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.4.1. Con: Some apps may not be compatible with smartphones as they may be optimized for use on a desktop.
1.3.4.1.2.1.4.4.2. Pro: In the UK, [90% of 11-year-olds](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/30/most-children-own-mobile-phone-by-age-of-seven-study-finds) have their own smartphone and almost all secondary school students have one.
1.3.4.1.2.2. Con: Teaching remotely incentivizes schools to provide students with laptops. These students may otherwise have not had access to laptops.
1.3.4.1.2.2.1. Pro: [Millions](https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/07/23/schools-handed-out-millions-of-digital-devices.html) of digital devices were handed out to students by schools in the US at the start of the pandemic.
1.3.4.1.2.2.2. Pro: The Hackney Council in the UK distributed [1500 laptops](https://news.hackney.gov.uk/hundreds-of-laptops-sent-to-students-that-need-them/) to disadvantaged students.
1.3.4.1.2.2.3. Con: It is not the responsibility of schools to provide students with laptops. Instead, it should be up to the government to provide students with this essential resource.
1.3.4.1.2.2.3.1. Con: The UK government's plans for distributing laptops to disadvantaged students were criticized for [being inadequate](https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/21/governments-plans-to-give-poorer-pupils-free-laptops-do-not-go-far-enough/) in meeting the needs of the students.
1.3.4.1.2.3. Con: Other students in the same classroom can be a distraction. Attending classes remotely removes this distraction.
1.3.4.1.2.3.1. Con: Teachers can ensure that students are focused on the material being taught and any distracting students reprimanded or removed from the class when teaching in-person.
1.3.4.1.2.3.1.1. Con: There's no particular reason why digital learning platforms couldn't add a feature to allow teachers to restrict the ability of students to hear disruptive students.
1.3.4.1.2.3.2. Con: Students in online classes are [more distracted](https://www.studyinternational.com/news/online-class-distract-multitask/) than those in physical classrooms.
1.3.4.1.2.3.3. Pro: On its own, a disruptive classroom environment [can lower](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2332858416653921) the achievement of the entire class \(p. 10\).
1.3.4.1.2.3.4. Pro: A [study](https://www.badgerinstitute.org/Reports/2013/The-Impact-of-Disruptive-Students-in-Wisconsin-Public-Schools.htm) of disruptive students in Wisconsin Public Schools found that disruptive students negatively affected learning outcomes for all other students.
1.3.4.1.2.4. Con: Learning with assistance from a parent or other relative rather than a teacher who has little time for individuals could be more personal and [effective](https://www.kompasiana.com/amayaamalia/54f7681da3331145338b47cd/homeschooling-is-better-than-public-school#:~:text=Most%20of%2080%25%20people%20agree,public%20school%20in%20some%20reasons.&text=Lack%20of%20violence%2C%20better%20social,homeschooling%20rather%20than%20public%20school.).
1.3.4.1.2.4.1. Pro: Parental involvement is a [significant indicator](https://www.waterford.org/education/how-parent-involvment-leads-to-student-success/) of academic success for students.
1.3.4.1.2.4.2. Con: Parents and relatives are working during the outbreak as well, so their time too is limited due to other responsibilities.
1.3.4.1.2.4.2.1. Pro: For most parents, balancing work with educating their children during the outbreak has been a [trying task](https://www.bbc.com/news/education-53319615), with most parents feeling overwhelmed by the extra responsibilities.
1.3.4.1.2.5. Con: Students are protected from many harms rampant in schools due to online education.
1.3.4.1.2.5.1. Pro: [Cliques](https://kidshealth.org/en/kids/clique.html) often form in schools. Other students may be bullied by members of popular cliques in high schools.
1.3.4.1.2.5.2. Pro: Nearly [20-25%](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740) of youth in schools are involved in bullying.
1.3.4.1.2.5.2.1. Pro: In sports, and soccer in particular, bullying is insufficiently regulated \(there generally being fewer officials than in the professional sport\). Bullying in soccer at school takes the form of malevolent and professional fouling, which educates kids in this amoral and dangerous practice that can persist into a professional career.
1.3.4.1.2.5.3. Pro: Sexual harassment in education "[is common in middle and high schools in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment_in_education_in_the_United_States)".
1.3.4.1.2.5.4. Pro: Many students can become victims of [theft at school](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671850/).
1.3.4.1.2.6. Pro: Remote education will not be [as effective](https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/25/how-shift-remote-learning-might-affect-students-instructors-and) as conventional educational methods and will bring down the overall quality of education.
1.3.4.1.2.6.1. Con: [5G technology](https://dlearn.eu/5g-technology-and-its-influence-on-education/) significantly expands the scope and quality of digital education.
1.3.4.1.2.6.1.1. Pro: 5G technology is [becoming more prevalent](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-where-5g-will-change-the-world/) in countries such as China, US and Japan.
1.3.4.1.2.6.1.2. Pro: Traditional in-person classroom learning can be complemented with new learning modalities, from live broadcasts to ‘educational influencers’ to virtual reality experiences.
1.3.4.1.2.6.1.3. Con: 5G access is still [limited](https://www.techradar.com/news/what-is-5g-everything-you-need-to-know), even in countries that have developed their networks.
1.3.4.1.2.6.2. Con: Distance education is [as effective](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/60530022.pdf) as face-to-face education \(p. 9\)
1.3.4.1.2.6.3. Pro: Students have [learned less](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/us/coronavirus-education-lost-learning.html) through remote education during Covid-19 than they would have had they continued with traditional modes of learning.
1.3.4.1.2.6.3.1. Con: An [analysis](https://educationpost.org/when-we-do-our-homework-and-put-resources-in-place-students-can-do-their-homework-too/) of 800,000 students that compared student progress in virtual classes both before and during Covid-19 discovered that progress decreased during the pandemic. This indicates that the problem is not with remote learning, but with other stresses associated with the pandemic.
1.3.4.1.2.6.3.2. Pro: Virtual learning will have [set back](https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai20-226) the average student by a third of their expected progress in reading and half of their expected progress in math.
1.3.4.1.2.6.3.3. Pro: Schools and teachers were [unprepared](https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121071/jrc121071.pdf) to switch to remote learning when the pandemic hit. This has contributed greatly to the educational setback experienced by students \(p. 28\).
1.3.4.1.2.6.4. Pro: Certain educational experiences, such as responding to the body language of students and conducting group activities, [cannot](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/will-coronavirus-make-online-education-go-viral) effectively be replicated online.
1.3.4.1.2.6.5. Pro: Technical degrees such as engineering and chemistry, which require lab-work, cannot be effectively taught without practicing the practical component.
1.3.4.1.2.7. Pro: [Time zone differences](https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-03-02-students-are-lonely-what-happens-when-coronavirus-forces-schools-online) can make it particularly difficult for international students who have flown home to work out a healthy schedule to attend lessons.
1.3.4.2. Pro: [School closure](https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/consequences) in many countries is likely to have a detrimental effect on the health and development of many children and youth.
1.3.4.2.1. Pro: School closures are likely to increase student drop-out rates among children from marginalized children. This results in a long-term disadvantage through the [loss of opportunities](https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-kids-who-will-never-return-to-school-after-covid-19-20200411-p54j0e.html#comments).
1.3.4.2.1.1. Pro: School closures result in a loss of access to such social contact which is important for [the long-term development](https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/consequences) of children.
1.3.4.2.2. Pro: As of 30 September 2020, 1.077 billion learners, or 61.6% of the world's student population, were [impacted due to school closures](https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse) in response to the pandemic.
1.3.4.2.3. Con: Many countries have already re-opened to allow access to in-person learning at [schools](https://theconversation.com/how-other-countries-reopened-schools-during-the-pandemic-and-what-the-us-can-learn-from-them-142706).
1.3.4.2.3.1. Con: In many countries, because of measures required to prevent the spread of infections, life at school has fundamentally changed despite re-opening.
1.3.4.2.3.1.1. Pro: In June 2020, [Montevideo](https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2020/06/29/uruguay-completa-la-reapertura-de-las-escuelas-256-mil-alumnos-vuelven-a-clase-en-montevideo/) schools instituted an alternating schedule of in-person and virtual learning to reduce the number of students in the classroom.
1.3.4.2.4. Pro: Working parents often leave children at home when schools are shut. This has sometimes lead to an increased influence of negative peer pressure concerning [substance abuse](https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/consequences).
1.3.4.2.5. Pro: School closures during earlier viral outbreaks, such as the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, lead to increased instances of teen pregnancies. [\(pg. 6\)](https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/RBA%20Policy%20Note%20Vol%202%20No%201%202015_Gender.pdf)
1.3.4.2.6. Pro: Schools are places where children access resources required for long-term [health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7195275). Closures disrupt this access, leading to adverse impacts on health.
1.3.4.2.6.1. Pro: Many children across the world depend on school meals for their required [nutrition](https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-emergencies/coronavirus-school-closures). Closures impact this availability which in turn has consequences for overall health and cognitive development.
1.3.4.2.6.2. Pro: For many children, schools are centers for [vaccination](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7195275) against several diseases. Closures lead to a disruption in immunization, which has a long-lasting impact on public and individual health.
1.3.4.2.7. Pro: Many students depend on schools for basic necessities and will be left helpless due to schools being shut down.
1.3.4.2.7.1. Pro: Many students depend on schools for [laundry](https://www.vox.com/2020/3/16/21180629/coronavirus-new-york-city-public-schools-closed) and [food](https://www.vox.com/2020/3/16/21180629/coronavirus-new-york-city-public-schools-closed).
1.3.4.2.7.2. Pro: [114,000](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/09/closing-nyc-schools-amid-coronavirus-outbreak-last-resort-says-official-due-114000) students in the US are homeless with nowhere to go.
1.3.4.3. Con: Response to the pandemic has resulted in significant innovation in education. This is likely to have a lasting impact on how education is accessed and distributed.
1.3.4.3.1. Pro: In October 2020 [UNESCO](https://en.unesco.org/mlw) held a conference that highlighted innovations in technology-enabled futures of learning for educational institutions.
1.3.4.4. Pro: Lack of non-virtual access to education is likely to have far-reaching [economic and societal consequences](https://www.fastcompany.com/90476445/school-closures-are-starting-and-theyll-have-far-reaching-economic-impacts).
1.3.4.4.1. Pro: The shift to digital learning has seen a significant reduction in [academic integrity](https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/112293) across schools.
1.3.4.4.1.1. Pro: Digital learning has lead to a rise in [contract cheating](https://www.turnitin.com/blog/what-is-contract-cheating-why-does-it-matter#:~:text=Contract%20cheating%20is%20the%20practice,student%20swaps%20papers%20with%20another.), academic file-sharing, and [exam cheating](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/magazine/if-my-classmates-are-going-to-cheat-on-an-online-exam-why-cant-i.html).
1.3.4.4.1.2. Con: Many institutions have embraced [technologies that prevent cheating](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/anti-cheating-software-university-of-manitoba-1.4223737) to ensure academic integrity over digital learning.
1.3.4.4.1.2.1. Con: [Anti-cheating technologies](https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21232777/examity-remote-test-proctoring-online-class-education) can cause anxiety in students which are then likely to have long-term impacts on well-being.
1.3.4.4.1.2.2. Con: Concerns about academic integrity have established an [adversarial relationship](https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/10/11/301/pdf) between students and teachers due to the policing that teachers are required to engage in. \(pg. 4\)
1.3.5. Con: The pandemic strengthened the idea of [collective effort and solidarity](https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1785/rr).
1.3.5.1. Pro: More than [150 counties](https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2020-more-than-150-countries-engaged-in-covid-19-vaccine-global-access-facility) are involved in the WHO's vaccine access facility, a concrete example of collective solidarity.
1.3.5.2. Con: '[Vaccine nationalism](https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/14/with-covid-19-vaccine-nationalism-is-a-worrisome-trend/)' undermines collective solidarity, as countries are favouring their own people and hoarding vaccines.
1.3.5.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.3.2.4.
1.3.5.2.2. Pro: The [People's Vaccine Alliance](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-vaccine-low-income-countries-lose-out-to-wealthy-countries) has claimed that developed countries for buying up more Covid-19 vaccines than they need, depriving developing countries of access to nearly enough vaccines.
1.3.6. Con: [Public support](https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1785/rr) for strong and centralized governance, and for increased funding on welfare grew at a level unseen in peacetime.
1.3.6.1. Pro: People are now more likely to [accept the cost](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/newe.12185), in terms of taxation and borrowing, of the welfare state.
1.3.6.2. Con: Many people also turned away from the state, towards [mutual aid](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/12/19/mutual-aid-groups-spread-in-covid-stricken-america) programmes.
1.3.7. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a significant rise in [misinformation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic).
1.3.7.1. Pro: Public fear and heightened emotions throughout the pandemic have meant people are more [susceptible](https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/crisis-and-resilience/covid-19/how-fake-news-has-exploited-covid19-cyber.html) to misinformation.
1.3.7.2. Pro: Misinformation around Covid-19 has spread quickly as there is a global audience looking for information about the pandemic, and there are still an incredible amount of [unknowns](https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/crisis-and-resilience/covid-19/how-fake-news-has-exploited-covid19-cyber.html).
1.3.7.3. Con: [Social media](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55005385) companies have come together to combat misinformation and conspiracy theories around Covid-19 in a way they have never done before.
1.3.8. Con: The pandemic will have a positive impact on the awareness and implementation of human rights.
1.3.8.1. Con: In some instances, the pandemic has led to an erosion of [human rights](https://www.economist.com/international/2020/10/17/the-pandemic-has-eroded-democracy-and-respect-for-human-rights).
1.3.8.1.1. Pro: The pandemic might impact the human [right to free movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement) by making international travel more restrictive through measures such as [vaccine visas](https://intpolicydigest.org/2020/11/22/are-vaccine-visas-set-to-eclipse-the-passport-as-a-travel-essential/).
1.3.8.1.1.1. Con: International travel was already quite restrictive, as most countries already require [visas](https://www.globotreks.com/tips/know-visa-requirements-to-travel/) which require payment and background checks.
1.3.8.1.2. Pro: The pandemic has made it more challenging for vulnerable groups to exercise or protect their human rights.
1.3.8.1.2.1. Pro: The pandemic has made it challenging for people to [access institutions](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality_and_human_rights_commission_how_coronavirus_has_affected_equality_and_human_rights_2020.pdf), such as courts, that protect legal rights. \(pg 40\)
1.3.8.1.2.2. Pro: Lawyers and [people defending the human rights](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26345&LangID=E) of the vulnerable have been very negatively impacted by the pandemic, and measures against it.
1.3.8.1.2.3. Pro: The pandemic has exacerbated existing vulnerabilities for young people in conflict zones with very limited access to basic services. [\(pg. 6\)](https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/resource-pdf/COMPACTCOVID19-05.pdf)
1.3.8.1.3. Pro: The measures instituted to fight the pandemic have already resulted in an erosion of human rights.
1.3.8.1.3.1. Pro: Technology put in place for tracing and tracking will lead to the [continuous use of hi-tech surveillance](https://www.top10vpn.com/news/surveillance/covid-19-digital-rights-tracker/) motivated by public health safety.
1.3.8.1.3.2. Pro: In some countries, measures instituted to control transmission resulted in an [erosion of human rights](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3629773) due to a lack of sufficient social safeguards.
1.3.8.1.3.2.1. Pro: The rights of many [informal workers](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3629773) were not protected during the lockdown. This resulted in a lack of access to food and basic amenities which were needed for survival during periods of unemployment that lockdowns created.
1.3.8.1.3.2.2. Pro: Lockdown measures have exacerbated [abuses of power by security forces](https://theconversation.com/why-human-rights-should-guide-responses-to-the-global-pandemic-147225).
1.3.8.1.3.2.3. Pro: In some countries, the measures in response to the pandemic weakened safeguards concerning access to healthcare.
1.3.8.1.3.2.3.1. Pro: [People living with HIV](https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/COVID-19-and-Human-Rights.pdf) have seen reduced access to life-saving medications. \(pg. 12\)
1.3.8.1.3.2.3.2. Pro: People with drug-dependency can lose [access to harm reduction programmes](https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/COVID-19-and-Human-Rights.pdf). This includes access to safe needles and syringes. \(pg. 12\)
1.3.8.1.3.3. Con: The lockdowns are temporary measures that will fade away once the pandemic ends. Once this happens, the erosion of human rights will be reversed.
1.3.8.1.3.4. Pro: Measures against the pandemic have disproportionally infringed upon the right to education. This is especially the case for people belonging to marginalized groups.
1.3.8.1.3.4.1. Pro: Inequalities in the [home-learning environment](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality_and_human_rights_commission_how_coronavirus_has_affected_equality_and_human_rights_2020.pdf) have been shown to intensify existing inequities with regards to racially marginalized communities. \(pg. 23\)
1.3.8.1.3.4.2. Pro: School closures during the lockdown have resulted in the interruption of education for [over 1 billion children](https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/COVID-19-and-Human-Rights.pdf).
1.3.8.1.3.5. Pro: The lockdowns have exacerbated existing gender inequities.
1.3.8.1.3.5.1. Pro: There is evidence showing that the lockdowns saw an [increase in domestic abuse](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality_and_human_rights_commission_how_coronavirus_has_affected_equality_and_human_rights_2020.pdf). \(pg 41\)
1.3.8.1.3.5.2. Pro: The lockdowns have intensified [traditional gender roles](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjTlaWEsLrtAhW1UhUIHfOhDFoQFjACegQIBRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fvoxeu.org%2Farticle%2Fimpact-coronavirus-pandemic-gender-equality&usg=AOvVaw1FFu-jEIJMxDQpPsth8qxg) because women have had disproportionately bear the burden of childcare, homeschooling, and domestic work.
1.3.8.1.3.6. Pro: The lockdowns have negatively impacted rights concerning labour and work.
1.3.8.1.3.6.1. Pro: The lockdown has infringed upon people's rights to livelihood and meaningful employment.
1.3.8.1.3.6.1.1. Pro: People belonging to minority groups and disabled people are at a greater risk of losing their [employment](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality_and_human_rights_commission_how_coronavirus_has_affected_equality_and_human_rights_2020.pdf) than other groups.
1.3.8.1.3.6.1.2. Pro: In the UK, for instance, large numbers of people are expected to be [pushed into poverty](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality_and_human_rights_commission_how_coronavirus_has_affected_equality_and_human_rights_2020.pdf) due to the measures taken to curb Covid-19. \(pg. 17\)
1.3.8.1.3.6.2. Pro: Many employers are engaging in practices such as [suspension of employment contracts](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-002172_EN.html), a reduction in wages, compulsory unpaid leave, and increased surveillance. These infringe upon the rights of labor.
1.3.8.1.3.6.3. Con: The pandemic has also led to [increased protection](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/07/25/the-covid-19-pandemic-is-forcing-a-rethink-in-macroeconomics) for unemployed workers.
1.3.8.1.4. Pro: The pandemic has resulted in increased discrimination and stigma towards [LGBTI people](https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/COVID-19-and-Human-Rights.pdf). \(pg. 12\)
1.3.8.1.5. Con: The pandemic has increased [international assistance and cooperation](https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx), which is an important principle of human rights law.
1.3.8.1.5.1. Pro: Countries have begun to realize that if one country fails to contain the pandemic, all other countries are at risk.
1.3.8.1.5.2. Pro: International cooperation includes universal access to the benefits of [scientific advances relating to Covid-19](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjQtLn2rLrtAhWEwuYKHXdeCvEQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscience.thewire.in%2Fhealth%2Fhuman-rights-covid-19-pandemic%2F&usg=AOvVaw1dv3GH_FNlcXV4cLDBLYL8) such as in testing and vaccination. This furthers human rights concerning inequities in scientific knowledge and healthcare.
1.3.8.2. Pro: The pandemic makes it more clear that [healthcare is a fundamental human right.](https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/31/coronavirus-makes-it-more-clear-ever-health-care-human-right)
1.3.8.2.1. Pro: A lack of access to free healthcare can [discourage](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/21/medicare-for-all-coronavirus-covid-19-single-payer) those who have severe symptoms of Covid-19 from accessing medical support.
1.3.8.2.2. Pro: If healthcare is not a human right, then people are not sufficiently protected during a health crisis.
1.3.8.2.3. Con: Health care is not universally accessible, and many countries don't provide their citizens with free healthcare. This suggests that it is not accepted as a human right.
1.3.8.3. Pro: More people will choose to go into public service.
1.3.8.3.1. Con: The Covid-19 outbreak may discourage individuals from working in healthcare due to the realisation that healthcare workers must work during a health crisis.
1.3.8.3.1.1. Pro: The excessive exposure and the lack of necessary equipment will discourage individuals from signing up for such dangerous work.
1.3.8.3.1.1.1. Pro: According to the [International Council of Nurses](https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/coronavirus/nurses-among-confirmed-deaths-from-covid-19-around-the-world-20-03-2020/), as far back as March 2020, many nurses working on the frontline across the globe had lost their lives to Covid-19.
1.3.8.3.1.1.2. Pro: During the Covid-19 outbreak, many healthcare workers on the frontlines did not have [access to personal protective equipment](https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/03-03-2020-shortage-of-personal-protective-equipment-endangering-health-workers-worldwide) \(PPE\).
1.3.8.3.1.1.2.1. Pro: As of December 2020, healthcare workers in the US were still facing [daunting shortages](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/health/covid-ppe-shortages.html) of masks and other PPEs.
1.3.8.3.1.1.2.2. Pro: Despite having secured adequate supplies of PPEs, the UK [has failed](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52254745) to distribute them to healthcare workers, even as late as September 2020.
1.3.8.3.1.1.3. Pro: By June 2020, healthcare workers were suffering from [PTSD, anxiety, and stress](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/coronavirus-takes-emotional-toll-health-workers-suffer-ptsd.html) after the extreme experiences they have lived during the pandemic. This is not an encouraging prospect for future health workers.
1.3.8.3.1.1.4. Con: Across the world, frontline workers are also to be among the [first](https://www.680news.com/2020/12/07/frontline-workers-essential-caregivers-among-to-be-vaccinated-first-ontario/) to be vaccinated.
1.3.8.3.1.2. Pro: Stockpiling during the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 [prevented many essential workers](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-stockpiling-food-panic-buying-nhs-cases-update-today-a9415991.html) from buying food supplies. Their work schedules effectively meant that most of the stock was depleted by the time they had the chance to shop.
1.3.8.3.1.2.1. Pro: The [NHS staff](https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-20/nhs-nurse-breaks-down-in-tears-after-she-s-unable-to-buy-food-after-48-hour-shift-amid-coronavirus-stockpiling/) was worried and unable to buy food after 48-hour long shifts because Britons were stockpiling goods in March 2020.
1.3.8.3.1.2.2. Pro: Localized stockpiling has continued to occur throughout the pandemic, and was observed in the US even in [November](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/walmart-sees-localized-grocery-stockpiling-as-covid-cases-rise.html) 2020.
1.3.8.3.1.3. Pro: The UK's National Health Service \(NHS\) cannot afford a further drop in the number of nurses given that there were [already deeply concerning shortages](https://www.nursinginpractice.com/professional/nurse-shortages-most-concerning-nhs) prior to the outbreak.
1.3.8.3.1.3.1. Pro: As of November 2020, nurses are stretched [alarmingly thin](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54844786) due to the strain of keeping up with the pressures and demands of the pandemic.
1.3.8.3.1.4. Con: It is expected that healthcare professionals will be called upon to work in times of crisis. As such, it is unlikely that people who are seriously considering entering the profession would be put off by the realisation of this potentiality during the Covid-19 outbreak.
1.3.8.3.1.4.1. Con: A [crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis) situation is by definition, uncommon. Thus, it is plausible that having to work during a crisis isn't something that prospective healthcare workers would have considered prior to the Covid-19 outbreak.
1.3.8.3.1.5. Con: Many healthcare professionals work in healthcare because they [want to help others](https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/rounds/why-i-became-a-doctor); having to work in a health crisis will not be discouraging for them.
1.3.8.3.1.6. Con: The Covid-19 outbreak has elevated the social status of healthcare workers.
1.3.8.3.1.6.1. Pro: During the Covid-19 outbreak, healthcare workers have consistently been described as "[essential workers](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/02/go-work-lockdown-essential-key-workers-list/)".
1.3.8.3.1.6.2. Pro: People are more likely to acknowledge and appreciate the role of healthcare workers in society after clearly witnessing their role in managing an international health crisis.
1.3.8.3.1.6.2.1. Pro: During the pandemic, people have [expressed their appreciation](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-52536070) for healthcare workers in a number of creative and touching ways.
1.3.8.3.1.6.3. Con: The pandemic also saw healthcare workers being [harassed](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/04/05/wearing-medical-scrubs-in-public-in-the-age-of-coronavirus/).
1.3.8.3.2. Pro: People might see that there is a need for more medical personnel and join for idealistic reasons.
1.3.8.3.2.1. Pro: In the year 2020, Norwegian universities and colleges experienced [record numbers of applicants](https://sciencenorway.no/education-epidemic-health/record-numbers-apply-to-nursing-and-medical-studies-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/1676535) for nursing and medical studies since the Covid-19 outbreak.
1.3.8.3.2.2. Pro: There were a [record number](https://hechingerreport.org/inspired-by-front-line-health-care-workers-record-numbers-apply-to-medical-schools/) of applications to medical schools in the US for Fall 2020.
1.3.8.3.2.3. Pro: The [SARS outbreak](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92444/) awoke strong political commitment to public health initiatives by demonstrating the adverse effects that a public health problem can have on economies and social stability. The Covid-19 pandemic will likely do the same.
1.3.8.3.2.3.1. Pro: [China](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-sars/the-shadow-of-sars-china-learned-the-hard-way-how-to-handle-an-epidemic-idUSKBN1ZL12B) saw many changes to how it conducts public health practice after the SARS outbreak.
1.3.8.3.2.3.2. Con: While political commitments to strengthen public health initiatives were made in the wake of the SARS outbreak, [lessons](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/09/deadly-virus-britain-failed-prepare-mers-sars-ebola-coronavirus) ultimately were not learned, and austerity blunted any meaningful efforts. There is no reason to expect it to be any different this time.
1.3.8.3.3. Pro: The pandemic has [increased interest in politics](https://www.ndi.org/publications/youth-attitudes-politics-and-democracy-central-europe) among some people. This will likely result in greater political participation, especially among the youth.
1.3.8.3.3.1. Pro: Covid-19 has highlighted many [issues](https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/politics-in-a-time-of-pandemic-5070715-Apr2020/) across society, and younger people may be motivated to try and fix them.
1.3.8.3.3.2. Pro: Many people in the US cited the [Covid-19 pandemic](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/06/2020-election-reveals-two-broad-voting-coalitions-fundamentally-at-odds/) as one of the reasons they chose their candidate in the 2020 election.
1.3.8.3.3.3. Pro: As a result of the increased online civic spaces created by the pandemic, young people are [increasingly learning about](https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/young-people-turn-online-political-engagement-during-covid-19) and engaging with politics.
1.3.8.4. Pro: The pandemic has revealed structural issues concerning racial inequality which were ignored before.
1.3.8.4.1. Pro: There has been a [rise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic) in racism against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent and appearance since the outbreak started in late December 2019.
1.3.8.4.1.1. Con: Chinese and East Asian populations were already experiencing rising rates of racist incidents before the Covid-19 outbreak.
1.3.8.4.1.1.1. Pro: [Trump's trade war with China](https://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21277/anti-China-nationalism-Donald-Trump-trade-wars-left-Bernie-Sanders-unions) fuelled anti-Chinese racism within the United States even before the outbreak of the virus.
1.3.8.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: According to a paper published by the Committee of 100, there is evidence that the [FBI engages in racial profiling against people of Chinese and other Asian descent](https://committee100.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-Kim-White-Paper-online.pdf) in economic espionage cases.
1.3.8.4.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: In two high-profile cases, naturalized Chinese-American citizens, [Sherry Chen](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/05/12/falsely-accused-of-spying-weather-service-employees-life-turned-upside-down/) and [Xiaoxing Xi](https://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21277/anti-China-nationalism-Donald-Trump-trade-wars-left-Bernie-Sanders-unions), were falsely accused of being Chinese spies stealing intellectual property from the United States. In both cases, the charges were later dropped.
1.3.8.4.1.1.2. Pro: Trump's 2018 policies, such as [those restricting visas for people from China](https://apnews.com/82a98fecee074bfb83731760bfbce515), [fueled the assumption](https://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21277/anti-China-nationalism-Donald-Trump-trade-wars-left-Bernie-Sanders-unions) that everyone from China was a potential threat to the U.S. economy and national security.
1.3.8.4.1.1.3. Pro: Even in [2016](https://rewire.news/article/2017/11/28/asian-americans-see-spike-hate-based-violence-trump-era/) and before, there was a rise in hate-based violence against Asian Americans in the US.
1.3.8.4.1.1.3.1. Pro: A report from the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations found that crimes targeting Asian-Americans [tripled in the county between 2014 and 2015](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/17/515824196/first-ever-tracker-of-hate-crimes-against-asian-americans-launched).
1.3.8.4.1.2. Pro: People have been [brutally attacked](https://time.com/5797836/coronavirus-racism-stereotypes-attacks/) in London due to their Asian appearances.
1.3.8.4.1.2.1. Pro: By July 2020, [2120 hate incidents](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-asian-american-hate-incidents-up-racism/) against Asian Americans had occurred.
1.3.8.4.1.2.2. Pro: An East Asian student sustained [facial injuries](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/uk/coronavirus-assault-student-london-scli-intl-gbr/index.html) in a racially-aggravated attack linked to the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020.
1.3.8.4.1.3. Con: As the epicentre of the pandemic moves and as the pandemic subsides, the racism will likely subside too.
1.3.8.4.1.3.1. Con: By December 2020, nearly a year after the Covid-19 outbreak [was declared](https://www.who.int/news/item/27-02-2020-a-joint-statement-on-tourism-and-covid-19---unwto-and-who-call-for-responsibility-and-coordination#:~:text=On%2030%20January%202020%2C,set%20of%20Temporary%20Recommendations.) a Public Health Emergency by WHO, racism against Chinese-Asians and their businesses [has persisted](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-race-and-ethnicity-pandemics-wuhan-animals-4d25738ab49597d0de1517383a9108d2) in the US.
1.3.8.4.1.4. Pro: In the United States, there has been a [rise in racist microaggressions](https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-see-increase-in-racism-and-xenophobia-as-coronavirus-spreads) in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak.
1.3.8.4.1.4.1. Pro: In March 2020, [schools reported incidents of bullying](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/02/811363404/when-xenophobia-spreads-like-a-virus) experienced by Asian Americans at the hands of their classmates.
1.3.8.4.1.4.2. Pro: By March 2020, Asian Americans experienced great [hostility](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/02/811363404/when-xenophobia-spreads-like-a-virus) on public transit.
1.3.8.4.1.4.3. Pro: President Trump sparked anger by referring to SARS-CoV-2 as the "[Chinese virus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/17/trump-calls-covid-19-the-chinese-virus-as-rift-with-coronavirus-beijing-escalates)".
1.3.8.4.1.5. Pro: A rise in racism has detrimental effects on the mental well-being of the victims.
1.3.8.4.1.5.1. Pro: Experiencing incidences of racism increases the chances of victims experiencing [depression and suicidal ideation](https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-see-increase-in-racism-and-xenophobia-as-coronavirus-spreads).
1.3.8.4.2. Con: Recent history shows that racism is not an issue that has been neglected.
1.3.8.4.2.1. Pro: The [American civil rights movement](https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement) of the 20th century represented the political struggle against legalized racism.
1.3.8.4.2.2. Pro: The United Nations has, for decades, [called for the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.](https://ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx) This shows global concern for the issue of racism.
1.3.8.4.2.2.1. Con: The fact the United Nations is still calling for the elimination of racism after decades indicates that the issue is still being neglected.
1.3.8.5. Pro: The pandemic will increase awareness and expansion of [economic security](https://prospect.org/special-report/economic-security-human-right/?).
1.3.8.5.1. Pro: Governments have been expanding their unemployment benefits as a result of the pandemic.
1.3.8.5.1.1. Pro: Many states in the US have [expanded](https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/states-may-expand-jobless-benefits-during-pandemic.aspx) unemployment benefits.
1.3.8.5.1.2. Pro: The UK government is looking to [expand](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/coronavirus-government-looking-at-151-21718568) the minimum amount paid in benefits, in recognition of the fact that benefits are currently too limited.
1.3.8.5.1.3. Con: Many countries have not sufficiently increased [protection for unemployment](https://www.newsclick.in/india-terrible-track-record-unemployment-benefits) despite the pandemic.
1.3.8.5.1.4. Pro: Under the [CARES Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3548/text), the US has passed a number of economic stimulus packages.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1. Con: The stimulus packages in the US have not provided sufficient benefits to vulnerable groups.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1. Pro: The first stimulus package, approved in March 2020, did not provide sufficient benefits to vulnerable groups.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: It is likely that economic stimulus packages in the US will be accompanied by an '[eligibility criteria](https://www.cbpp.org/blog/low-income-people-must-be-eligible-for-stimulus-payments-and-actually-receive-them)', similar to the one introduced in 2008. This might exclude those who don't file tax returns.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.2. Pro: Nonresidents and those without a Social Security number in the US are [disqualified](https://calmatters.org/commentary/stimulus-checks-for-the-coronavirus-pandemic-wont-be-sent-to-my-family/) from receiving stimulus benefits.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.3. Pro: The Republicans' stimulus plan deprived around [64 million](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/republican-stimulus-coronavirus-plan-usd1200-poor-usd600-checks.html) of America's poorest households from receiving the full $1,200 benefit.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.4. Con: The US Congress authorized a [second stimulus plan](https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/how-will-i-get-second-stimulus-check-2020-12?r=US&IR=T) in December 2020 that will provide relief to low-income groups.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.4.1. Con: The second stimulus package, approved in December 2020, provides [even less protection and benefits](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/congress-second-stimulus-package-update.html) than the first stimulus package to vulnerable groups.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.4.1.1. Pro: Direct payments of [$600](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/18/politics/second-stimulus-check-distribution/index.html) are being made to individuals under the new stimulus package, as opposed to the $900 payment made in the first package.
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.4.2. Con: Even though the second stimulus provides some relief to people from vulnerable groups, it is [insufficient](https://www.democracynow.org/2020/12/17/david_dayen_congress_stimulus_talks).
1.3.8.5.1.4.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.8.5.1.4.1.1.4.1.
1.3.8.5.1.4.2. Pro: The US Congress approved a [$892 billion](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-congress-idUSKBN28V176) stimulus package in December 2020.
1.3.8.5.1.4.2.1. Con: The December 2020 stimulus package included many provisions which will not provide citizens with much immediate benefit, such as the [$2 billion](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/what-is-in-the-usd900-billion-covid-second-stimulus-package.html) allocated towards the US Space Force.
1.3.8.5.1.4.3. Pro: [$2.2 trillion](http://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-2-trillion-coronavirus-relief-package) were allocated for the Covid-19 relief package in March.
1.3.8.5.1.5. Pro: India has [promised compensation](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/indian-state-promises-compensation-workers-hit-coronavirus-200319042121426.html) for daily wage workers who otherwise would not be able to make ends meet while work is on hiatus.
1.3.8.5.2. Con: Most people are already conscious of the need for economic security, irrespective of the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.3.8.5.2.1. Pro: In 2019, [25% of Americans](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/25-percent-of-americans-say-they-worry-about-money-all-the-time.html) reported worrying about money 'all the time'.
1.3.8.5.2.2. Pro: In 2018, [77% of UK residents](https://www.moneyadvisor.co.uk/money-news/77-of-us-are-stressed-about-money-but-were-not-talking-about-it/) said they were stressed about money.
1.3.8.5.2.2.1. Con: The same study also found that many of these UK residents [felt uncomfortable](https://www.moneyadvisor.co.uk/money-news/77-of-us-are-stressed-about-money-but-were-not-talking-about-it/) talking about money. The collectively felt economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic may make them feel more comfortable about doing so.
1.3.8.5.2.3. Con: Even if people already appreciated the need for economic security, the need for a [strong welfare state](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361327/) and thus the awareness of its need is likely to increase.
1.3.8.5.3. Pro: The pandemic makes it possible to require [businesses to comply with human rights](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25837&LangID=E) in order to be eligible for financial support and bailout.
1.3.8.5.4. Con: The [IMF](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/midst-pandemic-why-imf-still-pushing-austerity-global-south/) has continued to push for austerity policies in the global south, despite the pandemic. This makes it unlikely that many countries will increase spending on economic security.
1.3.8.5.5. Pro: The pandemic has brought the dire consequences of economic insecurity into public awareness. This is likely to result in steps that increase socio-economic protection.
1.3.8.5.5.1. Pro: A myriad of problems with the administration of unemployment benefits has been exposed as a result of the pandemic.
1.3.8.5.5.1.1. Pro: There is a [one-week waiting period](https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2E-Avoiding-Waiting-Weeks.pdf?mod=article_inline) in the US before unemployment benefits can be collected \(p. 56\). People can no longer afford to wait for so long due to the lockdown.
1.3.8.5.5.1.2. Pro: Usually, an [extremely limited](https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/03/26/business/ap-us-virus-outbreak-relief-bill-unemployed.html) number of people are eligible for unemployment benefits. People who are self-employed, have limited work-history, gig workers, and independent contractors usually cannot collect benefits.
1.3.8.5.5.1.3. Pro: The amount paid in benefits is often too low to be lived on. This is increasingly apparent now that people are unable to use the money paid to afford even the most minimal lifestyle.
1.3.8.5.5.1.3.1. Pro: The amount paid in unemployment benefits in [Arizona](https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2020/03/24/arizona-unemployment-benefits-too-low-help-survive-coronavirus-layoffs/2903106001/) in March 2020 was too low to be lived on.
1.3.8.5.5.1.3.2. Pro: In the UK, the amount paid in benefits in April 2020 was [too low](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/30/general-election-unemployment-poverty) to be lived on.
1.3.8.5.5.2. Pro: The fact that millions of older people have been suffering from food-insecurity has largely been [ignored](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/16/for-millions-of-low-income-seniors-coronavirus-is-a-food-security-issue/) thus far. The pandemic is bringing this into focus.
1.3.8.5.5.2.1. Pro: In 2017, more than [three-quarters](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-paycheck-to-paycheck-government-shutdown/?mod=article_inline#237a48724f10) of U.S. workers were living paycheck to paycheck.
1.3.8.5.5.3. Con: Awareness about the need for economic security does not automatically mean that countries will be able to effectively provide such security to their citizens.
1.3.8.5.5.3.1. Pro: If this were so, then extreme poverty would not exist.
1.3.8.5.5.3.1.1. Pro: Roughly [734 million people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty) worldwide live in extreme poverty \(or roughly 1 in 10 people\).
1.3.8.5.5.3.2. Con: Increased awareness of the risks of economic insecurity results in electoral trends in favor of parties who will expand the welfare state. This will eventually result in policy measures that increase [economic protection](https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-has-brought-the-welfare-state-back-and-it-might-be-here-to-stay-138564).
1.3.8.5.5.3.3. Pro: Many third world countries, whose citizens are in [dire need of economic security](https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/RessourcePDF.action?ressource.ressourceId=8670), do not have the resources to promise and provide such security to their citizens \(p. 4\).
1.3.8.5.5.3.3.1. Pro: According to the International Labor Organization, only [8%](https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_005218/lang--en/index.htm) of people live in countries which can provide them with favorable economic security.
1.3.8.5.5.3.3.2. Con: The global distribution of economic security does not always correspond to the global distribution of income.
1.3.8.5.5.3.3.2.1. Pro: Countries in [South and South-East Asia](https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_005218/lang--en/index.htm) do not have a higher proportion of global income, but their share of global economic security is relatively high.
1.3.8.5.5.3.3.2.1.1. Pro: South Asia has about 7% of the cumulative global income, but boasts about [14% of global economic security](https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_005218/lang--en/index.htm).
1.3.8.5.5.3.3.3. Pro: Third world countries are under [crippling debt obligations](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Third-World-debt).
1.3.8.5.5.3.3.3.1. Pro: According to a World Bank [study](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/10/02/debt-stocks-of-developing-countries-rose-to-78-trillion-in-2018-world-bank-international-debt-statistics), the total external debt of third world countries stood at $7.8 trillion in 2018, an increase of 5.3% since 2017.
1.3.8.5.6. Pro: The provision of economic security will improve the lives of millions of people around the world.
1.3.8.5.6.1. Pro: Economic security strengthens [tolerance and happiness](https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_005218/lang--en/index.htm) among people.
1.3.8.5.6.1.1. Pro: A study by the International Labour Office \(ILO\) [highlights](https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_005218/lang--en/index.htm) that people's economic security promotes personal well being, happiness and tolerance.
1.3.8.6. Con: [Some countries already cared](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/the-10-countries-that-care-the-most-about-human-rights-according-to-perception) a great deal about human rights prior to the outbreak. The pandemic has little impact on this.
1.3.8.6.1. Pro: Many western democracies are, or have been, already fighting against human rights abuses.
1.3.8.6.1.1. Pro: [Iceland, Norway, Finland and New Zealand](https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights) respect and protect human rights more than any other country.
1.3.8.6.1.2. Con: Countries like the United States have frequently supported authoritarian regimes with a record of human rights abuses for their personal benefits.
1.3.8.6.1.2.1. Pro: Successive U.S. governments have earned billions of dollars in profits from [selling American weapons to Saudi Arabia](https://www.newsweek.com/america-saudi-arabia-cover-human-rights-abuses-watchdog-warns-1483034), some of which have been used to commit war crimes in Yemen.
1.3.8.6.1.2.2. Con: The [human rights scores of western democracies](https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights) demonstrate that the United States is an exception to the rule that western democracies care about human rights.
1.3.8.6.1.3. Pro: The [Obama administration in the US](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/27/us-pressurised-saudis-let-women-drive) constantly pressurized Saudi Arabia to provide female citizens more rights.
1.3.8.6.2. Con: No country will have a perfect approach to protecting human rights; there is always room for improvement.
1.3.8.6.2.1. Pro: [Most people recognise](https://www.ipsos.com/en/human-rights-2018) that there are still human rights abuses happening in their own country.
1.3.8.6.3. Con: Many people do not know or care about human rights.
1.3.8.6.3.1. Pro: In 2018, [40% of people](https://www.ipsos.com/en/human-rights-2018) admitted that they knew little or nothing about human rights.
1.3.8.6.3.2. Pro: Most people only care about their [own rights](https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4785/people-care-about-their-own-rights-its-other-peoples-that-are-more-challenging).
1.3.8.6.3.3. Con: The vast majority of people see themselves as belonging to fundamentally welcoming and open societies and thus care about the fundamental rights of others.
1.3.8.6.3.3.1. Pro: In a [global survey](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/these-are-the-countries-most-welcoming-to-refugees) of how closely people would accept refugees, 80% said they would let them into their country, while [a tenth](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/refugees-welcome-index-shows-government-refugee-policies-out-of-touch/) were even willing to take them into their homes.
1.3.8.6.3.4. Con: Those who do not know about human rights usually belong to [repressive states](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/now-more-than-ever-we-need-to-protect-human-rights-but-do-people-still-care/), who silence dissent and impose heavy censorship.
1.3.8.7. Pro: The pandemic has increased awareness about the importance and urgency of freedom of speech in China.
1.3.8.7.1. Con: Even if there is more awareness, it is unlikely that the Chinese government will support this freedom, or even allow it once the situation improves.
1.3.8.7.1.1. Pro: In China, freedom of speech is [not a right but a privilege](https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right), the extent of which is controlled by the Chinese government.
1.3.8.7.1.1.1. Pro: Chinese authorities recognize that there must be outlets for the average person to express their dissatisfaction with the government. The Communist Party thus makes [officially approved and monitored outlets available](https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right) so it can help preserve its monopoly on power.
1.3.8.7.1.1.1.1. Pro: Making such outlets available allows governmental authorities to [track who is inclined to express discontent](https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right), and keep such expression from being forced underground where authorities could neither monitor nor control it.
1.3.8.7.1.1.2. Pro: A lack of transparency concerning [Chinese media regulations](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/media-censorship-china) allows authorities to crack down on news, claiming that it might potentially expose sensitive state secrets.
1.3.8.7.1.1.2.1. Pro: The definition of what constitutes "state secrets" is vague in Chinese regulations, thus any information that [authorities deem harmful](https://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/State-Secrets-Report/HRIC_StateSecrets_02.pdf) to their political or economic interests can be curtailed.
1.3.8.7.1.2. Pro: Curtailing the freedom of speech in China directly serves Chinese strategic interests in the region.
1.3.8.7.1.2.1. Pro: Freedom of speech is heavily curtailed in China to protect [Chinese interests and control over Hong Kong](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/rights-under-threat-how-china-is-bringing-hong-kong-to-heel).
1.3.8.7.1.3. Con: China’s [constitution](http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html) affords its citizens freedom of speech and press. If the struggle and fight against limitations to free speech continues, it is likely that the CCP would be willing to provide more freedoms to preserve its rule.
1.3.8.7.1.4. Pro: Xi Jinping's [New Year's address](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3116129/xi-jinping-framed-man-people-and-party-new-years-speech) showed him claim victory over the virus, and economic recovery. Given this, there is no reason to think that China will support increasing freedom.
1.3.8.7.2. Con: China’s censors [worked overtime](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qjdejp/a-chinese-citizen-journalist-covering-coronavirus-just-live-streamed-his-own-arrest) to silence critical voices at the outbreak of the virus. The work of the censors has prevented the spread of critical voices within China, reducing the exposure of people to the urgency of free speech issues.
1.3.8.7.2.1. Pro: Government officials in China have [erased the grief and anger of hundreds of thousands of people](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akwkbz/china-is-erasing-tributes-to-coronavirus-whistleblower-doctor-li-wenliang) in the wake of the death of the whistle-blower doctor, Li Wenliang.
1.3.8.7.2.1.1. Pro: Media within China, which is heavily regulated by the Chinese government, has been issued strict censorship instructions in light of these testimonies.
1.3.8.7.2.1.1.1. Pro: The government's censorship instructions, issued in February 2020, warned that “[it is strictly forbidden for reports to use contributions from self-media, and sites may not use pop-up alerts, comment, or sensationalize](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akwkbz/china-is-erasing-tributes-to-coronavirus-whistleblower-doctor-li-wenliang)” these stories.
1.3.8.7.2.1.1.2. Pro: According to [China Digital Times](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/02/minitrue-control-temperature-on-death-of-coronavirus-whistleblower/), media outlets were told, in February 2020, to “not set up special topic sections, gradually withdraw the topic from Hot Search lists, and strictly manage harmful information.”
1.3.8.7.2.2. Pro: The Chinese government was [tracking down Coronavirus critics](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxepem/heres-how-china-is-hunting-down-coronavirus-critics) in February 2020 and knocking on their door seeking an apology.
1.3.8.7.2.2.1. Pro: From tracking down Twitter users to hacking WeChat accounts, Beijing is [attempting to stop any negative news](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxepem/heres-how-china-is-hunting-down-coronavirus-critics) from being shared online and using intimidation, arrests and threats of legal action to limit its spread.
1.3.8.7.2.3. Pro: In September 2020, a Chinese tycoon who was critical of the Chinese government's response to the pandemic [disappeared.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/world/asia/china-ren-zhiqiang.html)
1.3.8.7.3. Con: Many countries have been aware of the need for freedom of speech in China for decades. Such awareness is not attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.3.8.7.3.1. Pro: In 2016, the [UN High Commissioner for Human Rights](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17050) expressed deep concerns regarding China's violations of free speech against lawyers and activists.
1.3.8.7.3.2. Pro: Malaysia’s premier, [Anwar Ibrahim](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/17/the-guardian-view-on-xinjiangs-detention-camps-not-just-chinas-shame), publicly called for talks with China about violations in Xinjiang in 2019.
1.3.8.7.4. Pro: [8 doctors were arrested](https://www.msn.com/en-za/health/medical/china-arrested-doctors-who-warned-about-coronavirus-outbreak-now-death-tolls-rising-stocks-are-plunging/ar-BBZB8tR#image=BBZeIyF|2) in February 2020 for spreading "rumours" that the symptoms of the early patients show resemblance to that of SARS patients. The official claimed that this would cause unnecessary panic among the public.
1.3.8.7.4.1. Pro: After a doctor died because of the infection, there was a huge [public outcry](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52897017) in June 2020 for the real implementation of freedom of speech on the internet.
1.3.8.7.4.1.1. Con: This backlash was quickly [silenced by the government's censorship](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3050086/coronavirus-hundreds-chinese-sign-petition-calling-freedom).
1.3.8.7.5. Pro: [Independent journalists were arrested](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/save-independent-reporter-chen-qiushi-and-brave-wuhan-citizen-fang-bin) for reporting what was happending in Wuhan, the epicentre.
1.3.8.7.5.1. Pro: Li Zehua, a citizen journalist who was exposing the reality of life inside the Wuhan lockdown zone at the epicenter of the Covid-19 outbreak, was [detained by China’s security forces at his apartment in Wuhan](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qjdejp/a-chinese-citizen-journalist-covering-coronavirus-just-live-streamed-his-own-arrest) in February 2020.
1.3.8.7.5.2. Pro: [Fang Bin](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939qyz/china-arrested-a-whistleblower-who-shot-viral-video-of-coronavirus-corpses-in-wuhan), a citizen journalist who secretly streamed videos of corpses piling up at a crematorium on account of Covid-19, was brutally arrested in February 2020 by police officers who broke into his apartment.
1.3.8.7.5.3. Pro: [Chen Qiushi](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/10/coronavirus-journalist-missing-in-wuhan-as-anger-towards-chinese-authorities-grows), a human rights advocate and journalist, went missing in February 2020 after he accused the Chinese government of trying to muzzle citizens attempting to tell the public the true conditions on the ground in Wuhan.
1.3.8.7.6. Pro: The propaganda bombardment in China let more citizens see the [shamelessness and hypocrisy of their government](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/world/asia/coronavirus-china-narrative.html).
1.3.8.7.7. Pro: Such awareness [can encourage](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17448689.2020.1794398?scroll=top&needAccess=true&) the formation of social movements, which may alleviate the tight control by the authority over freedom of speech.
1.3.8.7.7.1. Pro: The battle against such high-pressure censorship, spurred by the Covid-19 outbreak, [is already on](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/no-negative-news-how-china-censored-the-coronavirus/articleshow/79817668.cms?from=mdr).
1.3.8.7.7.1.1. Pro: February 2020 saw “we want freedom of speech” and links to the song "Do You Hear the People Sing", a song popularised in recent Hong Kong protests, become trending topics in China, [attracting millions of views](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/08/if-china-valued-free-speech-there-would-be-no-coronavirus-crisis).
1.4. Con: Many people's daily routines have not been meaningfully or irreversibly changed by the pandemic.
1.4.1. Con: In some countries, lockdown measures have been highly intrusive in relation to people's routines.
1.4.1.1. Con: The effect of the pandemic on people's daily routines depends heavily on their occupation and how accessible telecommunications are.
1.4.1.1.1. Con: Given that the [infrastructure](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/with-more-working-from-home-our-internet-undergoes-a-stress-test/) in the developed world was sufficient for the needs of those working and studying from home, those in developing countries would have been worse hit, and so the pandemic may have a lasting impact with regards to this inequality.
1.4.1.2. Con: Lockdown measures will be reversed when the pandemic is over, and so it cannot be said to have a lasting impact.
1.4.1.3. Pro: In [Spain](https://english.elpais.com/spanish_news/2020-04-30/spain-allocates-time-slots-for-outdoor-activity.html), the government did not allow its citizens to leave their homes \(except to go to a pharmacy or to buy groceries\). Afterwards, the government established when citizens could go for a walk and whom they could go for a walk with.
1.4.1.4. Pro: In [Greece](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-greece-reintroduce-sms-authorisation-for-movement-as-country-enters-second-lockdown-12126181), the government required that people send a text message to obtain permission to leave the house.
1.4.2. Pro: In places that have successfully contained the spread of Covid-19, life has been returning to normalcy for many people.
1.4.2.1. Pro: In June 2020, it was reported that life for many people in [New Zealand](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53274085) was returning to normal.
1.4.2.2. Con: Despite considerable success in reducing infections, [South Korea](https://www.ft.com/content/d68d6292-0486-4bfc-bf5c-54ce850a3f7a) continued to impose social distancing measures to respond to local outbreaks. In July 2020, it was reported that life had not yet returned to normal due to these measures.
1.4.2.3. Con: While Australia has successfully curbed the spread of the virus, it is expected that returning to normal life will take [much longer.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/17/australias-outlook-for-2021-is-improving-but-we-dont-expect-normal-life-any-time-soon)
1.4.3. Pro: Most [epidemiologists](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/coronavirus-covid19-life-social-distancing-noramlity-chart/) hold the view that many of our usual routines that have been impacted by the pandemic will resume to normalcy within a year.
1.4.3.1. Con: The pandemic is likely to change the way some people [work](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201023-coronavirus-how-will-the-pandemic-change-the-way-we-work) irreversibly.
1.4.3.1.1. Pro: Several companies have been reconsidering the traditional 40-hour workweek. Unilever, for instance, is [testing out a four-day workweek](https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/business/unilever-new-zealand-four-day-week-intl-hnk/index.html) at full pay in New Zealand.
1.4.3.1.2. Pro: The pandemic has also resulted in increased [monitoring](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/success/job-change-remote-work-pandemic/index.html) of employees, which is likely to stay in some companies.
1.4.3.2. Pro: Success in [vaccine development](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/10/now-we-have-the-coronavirus-vaccine-how-soon-can-we-get-back-to-normal-life) makes it likely that people's routines would return to normalcy soon.
1.5. Pro: The pandemic will have a lasting negative impact on people's physical and mental health.
1.5.1. Pro: A soar in unemployment negatively impacts the physical and mental health of many individuals. \([p. 268](https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/58979/ssoar-par-2018-2-saleem_et_al-Socio-Psycho_Impacts_of_Unemployment_on.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-par-2018-2-saleem_et_al-Socio-Psycho_Impacts_of_Unemployment_on.pdf)\)
1.5.1.1. Pro: In Canada, [over 30%](https://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/infosheet/unemployment-mental-health-and-substance-use) of those who are unemployed suffer from depression or anxiety.
1.5.1.2. Pro: A study [found](https://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/infosheet/unemployment-mental-health-and-substance-use) that a 10% rise in unemployment increases the number of people dying from heart disease by almost 2%.
1.5.1.3. Pro: Those who are unemployed have more unstructured time, which [increases the probability](https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/july-2013/exploring-the-link-between-drug-use-and-job-status-in-the-us) of substance abuse.
1.5.1.3.1. Pro: In the US, around [1 in 6](https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/26/news/economy/drugs-unemployed/index.html) unemployed workers are addicted to alcohol or drugs, which is almost twice the rate for employed workers.
1.5.2. Pro: People are starting to report longer-term medical issues following recovery from Covid-19.
1.5.2.1. Pro: [Early signs that the virus could trigger chronic-fatigue-like syndromes](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/lingering-and-painful-long-and-unclear-road-to-coronavirus-recovery-long-lasting-symptoms) have been borne out over time. Sufferers of so-called '[long Covid](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223)' have reported chronic fatigue and exhaustion.
1.5.2.1.1. Pro: While still anecdotal, there are many reports of patients with more serious cases experiencing [relapsing symptoms or new symptoms](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/lingering-and-painful-long-and-unclear-road-to-coronavirus-recovery-long-lasting-symptoms) even months after clearing the virus.
1.5.2.1.2. Pro: A study published in January 2021 has found that [76%](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)32656-8/fulltext) of patients hospitalized due to Covid-19 suffered from acute symptoms six months later.
1.5.2.2. Pro: For those who need ventilation, the [recovery process](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/the-road-to-recovery-for-covid-19-patients) will frequently require needing help relearning to breathe unaided, swallow or talk, as well as to rebuild muscle mass even to do things like sit up or walk short distances.
1.5.2.3. Pro: Those who survived critical illness caused by MERS, a [similar](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/06/23/no-un-climate-talks-held-2020-interim-meeting-postponed/) virus to Covid-19, [reported](https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12955-019-1165-2) lower quality of life than survivors of less severe illness.
1.5.3. Pro: If it continues to circulate indefinitely it will have an ongoing impact on population growth and life expectancy as a disease that remains [endemic](https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/what-is-an-endemic-virus) in countries that are failing to deal with it like the US and Brazil.
1.5.3.1. Pro: If it becomes endemic, people won't just get it once - [as immunity wears off](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-you-become-immune-sars-cov-2-180974532/), they'll get it again, and then again, and then again. Each time they get it, they'll have a new chance of dying.
1.5.3.1.1. Con: Future waves would likely be weaker, as people will have some [residual immunity from previous infections](https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/), even if their immunity has worn off enough to allow reinfection.
1.5.3.1.2. Con: Viruses [tend to mutate towards less deadly over time](https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/), as dead or very ill people don't transmit them.
1.5.3.1.3. Con: People may acquire a degree of immunity after being infected with Covid-19.
1.5.3.1.3.1. Pro: [Experts](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/4/5/21208630/coronavirus-cdc-blood-test-immunity-serological-cellex) anticipate that Covid-19 will generate at least some immunity.
1.5.3.1.3.1.1. Pro: Coronavirus researcher, [Matt Frieman](https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/profiles/Frieman-Matthew/), thinks it is very likely that people who are reinfected with Covid-19 will be [impacted far less severely](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/20/819038431/do-you-get-immunity-after-recovering-from-a-case-of-coronavirus) as a result of acquiring some level of immunity.
1.5.3.1.3.1.1.1. Con: Matt Frieman qualifies this by stating that it is [impossible to know](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/20/819038431/do-you-get-immunity-after-recovering-from-a-case-of-coronavirus) this conclusively at this stage.
1.5.3.1.3.1.2. Pro: [Anthony Fauci](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/can-you-catch-coronavirus-twice-you-ll-probably-be-immune-n1171976), head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases \(NIH\), said that if the virus behaves like every other known virus, then once recovered, patients will have immunity.
1.5.3.1.3.1.2.1. Con: Having immunity is not really the question - the key question is how long immunity will last, and how strong the protection will be. This can vary widely from virus to virus, even between closely-related viruses.
1.5.3.1.3.2. Pro: A study of survivors of [SARS](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars/) - which is also a coronavirus - found that around [90% had functional, virus-neutralising antibodies](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)30985-5/fulltext#back-bib10) and about 50% had strong T-lymphocyte responses.
1.5.3.1.3.3. Pro: [Immunity](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/immunity-to-sars-cov-2-lasts-at-least-six-months-data-show-68179) has been shown to last up to six months.
1.5.3.1.3.4. Con: The amount of immunity one builds up after exposure to a virus partially [depends on one's immune system](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/03/15/can-you-get-infected-by-coronavirus-twice-how-does-covid-19-immunity-work/#988cc9f5c0f8) and its response. Therefore, some people may not acquire much immunity at all.
1.5.3.1.3.5. Con: There have been [reports](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/japanese-woman-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-for-second-time) that people who were previously infected with the virus were reinfected.
1.5.3.1.3.5.1. Con: Given how closely many countries are monitoring this particular virus, it is not surprising that there are reports of reinfection. For any viral infection, there are always outliers whose immune systems - for a wide variety of reasons - behave differently from others, and for whatever reason don't develop immunity.
1.5.3.1.3.5.1.1. Pro: Famously, Babe Ruth caught the Spanish Flu [twice in a relatively short timeframe](https://slate.com/culture/2020/03/babe-ruth-flu-1918-red-sox-war-fever-excerpt.html) - despite it being very much a virus that people could and did develop immunity to the following infection.
1.5.3.1.3.5.2. Con: Experts believe that it is not reinfection but the [lingering infection](https://time.com/5810454/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection/) that is being detected by the tests.
1.5.3.1.3.5.2.1. Pro: A positive test after recovery could be detecting the [residual viral RNA](https://time.com/5810454/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection/) that has remained in the body, but not in high enough amounts to cause the disease.
1.5.3.1.3.5.3. Pro: A study found that 4 patients in China were [reinfected](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762452) with the virus after having recovered.
1.5.3.1.3.5.4. Con: Some experts suspect that many of the reported reinfections are explained by [technical issues with sampling](https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-catch-twice/) rather than actual repeat infection.
1.5.3.1.3.5.5. Pro: As the virus has continued, so too have the instances of reinfection. This includes a man in the US, whose [tests](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099\(20\)30783-0/fulltext) indicated that it was unlikely to be a continuing infection.
1.5.3.1.3.6. Con: Given how new Covid-19 is, there is [not yet enough evidence](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532754-600-can-you-catch-the-coronavirus-twice-we-dont-know-yet/) to know whether recovering from it induces immunity.
1.5.3.1.3.6.1. Con: In [animal models](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1), infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in immunity that prevents future reinfection.
1.5.3.2. Con: Given the development of [vaccines](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html), it is unlikely the virus will continue to circulate.
1.5.3.2.1. Pro: A number of vaccines, including ones by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Oxford/AstraZeneca have shown promising [results](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/08/how-has-a-covid-vaccine-been-developed-so-quickly) in late-stage trials, and December 2020 saw the vaccine being [distributed](https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/i-feel-so-privileged-90-year-old-fermanagh-grandmother-is-first-in-the-world-to-receive-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-39839349.html) in the UK.
1.5.3.2.2. Pro: By January 2021, [many countries](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03370-6) had procured vaccines and began to distribute them.
1.5.3.3. Pro: Reduced life expectancy will improve pension returns. These payments are paid on a regular basis and are calculated based on how long you're expected to live. The [shorter that is](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/pension_glance-2011-9-en.pdf?expires=1610446581&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=CD7E61499345FEE62B925B2A96583F9F), the more the pension company will give you each time \(p. 82\).
1.5.3.4. Pro: The [number of deaths](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) caused by Covid-19 is increasing rapidly. Thus, there are a significant number of people who may lose family members.
1.5.3.4.1. Pro: The pandemic has resulted in many deaths which will leave an impact on the emotional lives of those who lose their loved ones.
1.5.3.4.2. Pro: The grieving process is worsened when families are [unable to say final goodbyes](https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/dying-in-solitude-first-hand-accounts-of-the-coronavirus-horrors-in-italy-a-371012bf-67eb-4bf8-a5dc-828e12c2be06) to their loved ones.
1.5.3.4.2.1. Pro: Many families are [not allowed to meet their loved ones](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/allow-loved-ones-to-be-with-dying-coronavirus-patients-says-charity) when they are in critical condition, because they risk contracting the virus.
1.5.3.4.2.2. Con: Many people die quickly or unexpectedly, meaning that not having an opportunity to say goodbye is, sadly, not unique to Covid-19.
1.5.3.4.2.2.1. Pro: Globally, around [1.35 million](https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/) people die in road crashes every year.
1.5.3.4.2.2.2. Pro: In the US, approximately [170,000 people](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm) die as a result of an accident every year.
1.5.3.4.2.3. Pro: Some families are [unable to attend funerals](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52150141) of loved ones who die from Covid-19.
1.5.3.4.2.4. Pro: Due to the risk of contracting and spreading Covid-19, [family members are often unable](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/what-happens-intensive-care-coronavirus-18053712) to spend time with their loved ones in the lead up to their passing.
1.5.3.5. Con: Since the vast majority of people who die from Covid-19 are [already elderly](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51674743), it is unlikely that overall human life expectancy rates will be appreciably reduced.
1.5.3.5.1. Pro: A Swedish study found that since Covid-19 is more dangerous for older people, the average life expectancy of 2020 will be [shortened by approximately 75 days](https://www.iffs.se/en/news/the-coronavirus-mortality-and-life-expectancy/) in Sweden. By comparison, smoking reduces the average life expectancy in Sweden by about one year.
1.5.3.5.2. Con: According to CDC experts, life expectancy in the US could drop by as many as [three years.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/22/covid-coronavirus-us-life-expectancy-experts)
1.5.3.5.3. Pro: The global average life expectancy is [72.6 years](https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy), while the vast majority of Covid-19 deaths occur in the [over 70s](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/).
1.5.4. Pro: The pandemic is likely to severely affect the long-term psychological well-being of many individuals.
1.5.4.1. Pro: People's relationships may suffer under the many stresses of the pandemic, causing considerable anguish.
1.5.4.1.1. Pro: Divorce, which negatively impacts the psychological health of all parties involved, is likely to occur at an [increased rate](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/dating/coronavirus-self-isolation-divorce-rates-increase-relationships-a9408201.html) due to the stresses of self-isolating.
1.5.4.1.1.1. Pro: A heightened divorce rate might shake society's trust in the institution of marriage, or the possibility of stable long-term relationships.
1.5.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: As a result, younger people may [not even try](http://marripedia.org/effect_of_divorce_on_children_s_future_relationships) to maintain long-term relationships.
1.5.4.1.1.2. Pro: It has been reported that there has been an [uptick](https://www.natlawreview.com/article/divorce-rates-and-covid-19) in divorce cases across the world since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.5.4.1.1.2.1. Con: Other reports issued in October 2020 have claimed that divorces are actually [down](https://ifstudies.org/blog/divorce-is-down-during-covid) amidst the pandemic.
1.5.4.1.1.2.2. Pro: [Divorce cases in China](https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/divorce-cases-rise-in-china-as-couples-spend-too-much-time-together-during-coronavirus-home-quarantine/ar-BB11gXnQ) were already spiking by March 2020 due to families spending too much time together during home quarantine.
1.5.4.1.1.2.2.1. Pro: In China, [more than 300](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8124841/Coronavirus-spark-rise-UK-divorces.html) couples have scheduled appointments to get a divorce since February 24.
1.5.4.1.1.3. Con: If spending time together is stressful, then it is probably best for the families in question to get divorced.
1.5.4.1.1.4. Pro: Parents getting divorced has [lasting negative consequences](http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/divorce-and-separation/according-experts/consequences-separationdivorce-children) for their children.
1.5.4.1.1.4.1. Pro: Parental divorce is associated with approximately a [one-and-half to two-fold increase](http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/divorce-and-separation/according-experts/consequences-separationdivorce-children) in the risk for children experiencing their own divorce later in life.
1.5.4.1.1.5. Con: Divorce can be an [extremely stressful process](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/contemplating-divorce/201207/where-are-you-the-divorce-stress-scale), and therefore may be more stressful than self-isolating with one's partner. This may dissuade people from filing for divorce.
1.5.4.1.1.5.1. Pro: Based on the [Holmes-Rahe Stress Scale](https://www.cdsoc.com/why-divorce-so-stressful-orange-county/), divorce is the second highest stressor anyone can face, second only to the death of a spouse.
1.5.4.1.1.6. Con: The divorce process can be long and will likely surpass the self-isolation period. Given this, some may decide that on balance divorcing is disproportionate.
1.5.4.1.1.6.1. Pro: In the UK, the divorce process can take between [4 and 12 months](https://www.divorce-online.co.uk/how-long-does-a-divorce-take/).
1.5.4.1.2. Con: Self-isolating together may cause people to doubt whether they can enjoy spending time together in the long term. If so, self-isolation now will only accelerate the process of relationships breaking down.
1.5.4.1.2.1. Pro: Much of the advice given to self-isolating couples revolves around [communicating effectively and being kind](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/coronavirus-tips-self-isolation-family-partner-argument-a9411851.html) to each other. Yet these qualities are fundamental to a relationship anyway.
1.5.4.2. Pro: Social distancing will accelerate the process of driving communication to our screens instead of communicating in person, which is bad for our mental health.
1.5.4.2.1. Pro: This could have a deleterious effect on children's social development.
1.5.4.2.1.1. Pro: Children who spend more time engaging with a screen than with other kids or adults [can struggle](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-screen-time-can-slow-your-childs-development/) to understand emotion, create strong relationships or become more dependent on others.
1.5.4.2.1.1.1. Con: For already-isolated children, social media can provide a [supportive online community](https://www.toledoblade.com/news/medical/2017/10/29/Social-media-can-boost-self-esteem-in-young-people-experts-suggest/stories/20171030008).
1.5.4.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: [50% of young LGBT+ people](https://www.toledoblade.com/news/medical/2017/10/29/Social-media-can-boost-self-esteem-in-young-people-experts-suggest/stories/20171030008) report having at least one close friend who they only know from online interactions.
1.5.4.2.1.2. Con: Children are [already](https://www.deseret.com/2014/8/29/20547284/face-time-vs-screen-time-the-technological-impact-on-communication) spending enough time with screens that their social development has been adversely affected.
1.5.4.2.1.3. Pro: Increased screen time can [cause](https://medium.com/thrive-global/will-technology-ruin-your-childrens-development-663351c76974) headaches, eye strain and irritated eyes for children.
1.5.4.2.1.4. Pro: Increased use of social media has been linked to a [loss of self-esteem](https://childmind.org/article/is-social-media-use-causing-depression/) among children.
1.5.4.2.1.4.1. Pro: [Physical activity](https://childmind.org/article/what-role-do-sports-play-in-the-mental-health-of-children/), which helps [generate a sense of accomplishment](https://childmind.org/article/is-social-media-use-causing-depression/), such as by learning new skills and developing talents, is heavily neglected due to increased use of social media.
1.5.4.2.2. Pro: The increased use of social media has been [linked with](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/social-media-use-increases-depression-and-loneliness) depression and loneliness.
1.5.4.2.2.1. Pro: A study published in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology [found](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/social-media-use-increases-depression-and-loneliness#Does-social-media-cause-depression?) a causal link between the use of social media and negative effects on an individual's well-being, primarily depression and loneliness.
1.5.4.2.2.2. Pro: In several recent studies, teenage and young adult users who spend the most time on Instagram, Facebook and other platforms were [shown to have](https://childmind.org/article/is-social-media-use-causing-depression/) a substantially \(from 13-66%\) higher rate of reported depression than those who spent the least time.
1.5.4.2.2.2.1. Con: This correlation may be explained by the fact that many [mental health awareness initiatives](https://thriveglobal.com/stories/3-best-mental-health-social-media-campaigns-and-what-to-learn-from-them/) take place on social media. As such, social media users may be more likely to report depression, rather than social media causing depression in the first place.
1.5.4.2.2.3. Con: In at least some respects, using social media can improve one's mental health.
1.5.4.2.2.3.1. Pro: College students experience a [boost in self-esteem](https://www.toledoblade.com/news/medical/2017/10/29/Social-media-can-boost-self-esteem-in-young-people-experts-suggest/stories/20171030008) after viewing their Facebook profiles.
1.5.4.2.3. Con: If families are self-isolating together, then they may be communicating more than they would when following their usual busy routines.
1.5.4.3. Pro: Many severely ill patients are [being turned away from hospitals](https://time.com/5788495/china-hospital-shortage/) because of a shortage of space. This affects the mental health of both the patients and their families.
1.5.4.3.1. Pro: Patients with illnesses apart from the Covid-19 are being treated as [collateral damage](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-05/china-sacrifices-a-province-to-save-the-world-from-coronavirus). Many of them might face long-lasting consequences due to being denied proper treatment.
1.5.4.3.2. Pro: Many urgent [life-saving operations](https://time.com/5788495/china-hospital-shortage/) have been cancelled and postponed, causing immense stress to patients and their families.
1.5.4.3.2.1. Pro: One UK patient had their much-needed [double heart bypass cancelled](https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/coronavirus-latest-patient-has-heart-17912579) in March 2020, thus impacting their mental health and worsening their physical condition.
1.5.4.4. Pro: The [lockdowns](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20201021-coronavirus-the-possible-long-term-mental-health-impacts), which have been instituted to curb the pandemic in many countries throughout the world, are likely to have long-term impacts on the mental health of many people.
1.5.4.4.1. Pro: The pandemic has increased [loneliness](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239698) among people in several countries.
1.5.4.4.1.1. Con: The lifestyle followed in large cities is the reason many people spend most of their day alone.
1.5.4.4.1.1.1. Pro: Life in a city is usually [extremely busy](https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2014/12/20/why-is-everyone-so-busy), meaning that people get to spend less time with others.
1.5.4.4.1.1.2. Pro: Loneliness was regarded as a [public health issue](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4386514/) long before the pandemic.
1.5.4.4.1.1.2.1. Con: Lockdowns mandated in response to the pandemic are likely to increase/create [loneliness](https://www.dw.com/en/i-am-completely-alone-loneliness-hits-elderly-hardest-during-pandemic/a-55519064) among the elderly due to restrictions on a number of visitors.
1.5.4.4.1.1.3. Con: Due to the UK's housing crisis, [more people than ever houseshare](https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/houseshares-pros-cons-having-flatmates-generation-rent/258346) and so much of their day is in the presence of others.
1.5.4.4.1.1.4. Con: Even if modern lifestyles generally encourage people to live isolated from others, this does not negate the point that Covid-19 has made this tendency more [pronounced](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350620302742).
1.5.4.4.1.2. Con: Loneliness among some population groups preceded the pandemic.
1.5.4.4.1.2.1. Pro: In the [UK](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/half-a-million-older-people-spend-every-day-alone-poll-shows), over half a million older people spend every day alone.
1.5.4.4.1.2.2. Con: It feels different to be alone because one chooses to be alone compared to having it forced upon you. The latter is coerced because people are not making a choice.
1.5.4.4.1.3. Con: [Loneliness](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-the-midst-of-the-pandemic-loneliness-has-leveled-out/) decreased among some people due to an increase in perceived social and emotional support during the pandemic.
1.5.4.4.1.4. Pro: Decreased social interactions caused by lockdowns and social distancing norms have increased [loneliness](https://www.qub.ac.uk/coronavirus/analysis-commentary/lockdown-isolation-loneliness/) among people.
1.5.4.4.1.4.1. Con: Social distancing does not necessarily lead to [loneliness](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-health/202008/5-major-myths-about-loneliness).
1.5.4.4.1.4.1.1. Pro: For some people, virtually spending time with their family and friends has [bolstered social health](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-the-midst-of-the-pandemic-loneliness-has-leveled-out/) and prevented loneliness.
1.5.4.4.1.5. Pro: Lockdowns have [intensified](https://whatworkswellbeing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/COVID-LONELINESS-2020.pdf) loneliness among those already lonely. \(pg 1\)
1.5.4.4.1.5.1. Pro: According to a poll, loneliness for older adults [doubled](https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/rounds/loneliness-doubled-for-older-adults-first-months-of-covid-19) in the first months following the outbreak of Covid-19.
1.5.4.4.2. Pro: Many people who hadn't experienced [mental health issues](https://www.mind.org.uk/media-a/5929/the-mental-health-emergency_a4_final.pdf?) before developed such issues as a result of the lockdowns.
1.5.4.4.3. Pro: It is likely that self-isolating will negatively impact many people with underlying mental health conditions.
1.5.4.4.3.1. Con: There are many [guides available](https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/coronavirus-and-your-wellbeing/) that provide guidance on how to manage mental health during self-isolation.
1.5.4.4.3.2. Pro: Relationships and social support can [help improve mental well-being.](https://esrc.ukri.org/news-events-and-publications/evidence-briefings/mental-health-and-social-relationships/) Many people will be deprived of this during self-isolation.
1.5.4.4.3.2.1. Con: Individuals can maintain contact with their social network through social media and [group video calls](https://www.heart.co.uk/news/coronavirus/group-chat-facetime-how-to/).
1.5.4.4.3.2.1.1. Pro: During Italy's lockdown, Facebook group calls have [increased by 1000%](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52029737).
1.5.4.4.3.2.1.2. Pro: During March 2020, Europe's telecommunications networks experienced a "traffic explosion" from people in lockdown [making phone calls](https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/25/europe-s-coronavirus-confinements-spark-voice-call-resurgence) to each other.
1.5.4.4.3.2.1.3. Con: Many of the elderly, who are [particularly vulnerable to loneliness](https://www.which.co.uk/later-life-care/home-care/loneliness/causes-of-loneliness-az2sz4h7d397), have trouble using [technology](https://www.noisolation.com/global/research/why-do-many-seniors-have-trouble-using-technology/) so this mode of communication is not available to them.
1.5.4.4.3.3. Pro: One [study](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)30460-8/fulltext) finds that many individuals who were quarantined during past pandemics experienced short and long-term mental health issues.
1.5.4.5. Con: -> See 1.2.5.
1.5.4.6. Con: Many people are attempting to combat loneliness and promote the psychological well-being of others. This will help mitigate the psychological toll of the outbreak.
1.5.4.6.1. Con: Many of these initiatives, while commonplace at the beginning of the pandemic, have dwindled in their prominence.
1.5.4.6.2. Pro: In [Turkey at 9 PM](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-turkey-istanbul-residents-applause-doctors-nurses-a9416691.html), people clap, cheer, whistle, and bang pots to lift spirits and show appreciation for healthcare workers.
1.5.4.6.2.1. Pro: People in [Ireland](https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/covid-19-ireland-stops-to-give-round-of-applause-for-front-line-workers-1.4213066) stopped to clap for front line workers.
1.5.4.6.2.1.1. Con: At the same time, the Irish government rejected a proposal to pay [student nurses](https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mcdonald-criticises-pay-rise-for-judges-as-student-nurses-remain-unpaid-1048267.html), showing that their work is not sufficiently valued.
1.5.4.6.2.2. Con: Clapping and cheering does not improve people's mental health.
1.5.4.6.3. Pro: Neighbours have been sending [postcards](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-51880695) to each other, asking whether they need any practical or emotional support.
1.5.4.6.3.1. Pro: This #viralkindness campaign has [gone global](https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/coronavirus-postcard-campaign-kindness-to-neighbours/368062).
1.5.4.6.4. Con: People suffering from depression often find it [difficult to ask for help](https://www.blurtitout.org/2017/08/22/depression-why-hard-to-ask-for-help/). Therefore, initiatives that require them to respond and explain what they need may not be very effective for them.
1.5.4.6.5. Pro: Many people have come together to participate in sing-alongs.
1.5.4.6.5.1. Pro: Some Italians in lockdown have joined together in [sing-alongs](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/italians-sing-patriotic-songs-from-their-balconies-during-coronavirus-lockdown).
1.5.4.6.5.2. Pro: Singing is known to [improve mental health](https://www.openmicuk.co.uk/advice/why-singing-is-good-for-mental-health/) in a number of ways.
1.5.4.6.5.2.1. Pro: The [body releases oxytocin](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00518/full) when singing, which reduces stress, increases social bonding, and boosts psychological well-being.
1.5.4.6.5.3. Pro: Many Americans in lockdown have joined together in [sing-alongs.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-window-singalong.html)
1.5.4.7. Pro: The outbreak presents real challenges with regards to anxiety disorders.
1.5.4.7.1. Pro: Many people are likely to develop [anxiety](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/anxiety-on-rise-due-to-coronavirus-say-mental-health-charities) amidst this panic.
1.5.4.7.1.1. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic is causing [increased stress and anxiety](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/anxiety-on-rise-due-to-coronavirus-say-mental-health-charities), particularly among people with existing mental health problems.
1.5.4.7.1.2. Pro: A survey in a convalescent hospital in Hong Kong showed that approximately [50%](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323309/) of recovered SARS patients showed anxiety, and approximately 20% were fearful.
1.5.4.7.1.2.1. Con: The fact that only 50% of recovered SARS patients showed anxiety proves that contracting SARS was not a sufficient condition to cause anxiety. Thus, the inability to forget distressing memories in these instances, is likely caused by other factors.
1.5.4.7.1.3. Pro: Anxiety tends to [get worse](https://drugabuse.com/9-myths-about-anxiety-and-the-people-struggling-with-it/) over the course of a sufferer's life.
1.5.4.7.2. Pro: Covid-19 can exacerbate symptoms of and negatively impact the treatment of [Obsessive Compulsive Disorder \(OCD\)](https://www.ocduk.org/ocd-coronavirus-summary/) and other anxiety disorders.
1.5.4.7.2.1. Pro: Therapy for anxiety disorders [can involve touching objects without washing hands or going into large crowds.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/ocd-and-anxiety-disorder-treatment-can-be-complicated-by-coronavirus-fears/2020/03/13/6b851d60-63ce-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html) The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted government recommendations seemingly confirming the danger of large crowds and not washing hands to the patient with an anxiety disorder.
1.5.5. Pro: Many physical activities that people were directly engaged in have been limited or shut off. This might negatively affect their health and well being.
1.5.5.1. Pro: Many countries instituted [limits](https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/66269-ireland-placed-on-level-5-of-the-plan-for-living-with-covid/) on how far one could go from one's home. This could deny people access to amenities like hiking trails or the sea, which they would have otherwise used for exercise.
1.5.5.2. Pro: Many countries have closed down parks and gyms \(in [2020](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09429-3) and [2021](https://fortune.com/2020/12/28/covid-home-fitness-gym-membership-2021-new-year-closures/)\), which many people frequently accessed to live a healthier lifestyle.
1.5.5.2.1. Pro: In the US, the risk of obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes [has increased](https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09429-3) in children due to the sedentary lifestyle that the closure of parks and gyms has encouraged.
1.5.5.2.2. Con: Physical activity is not restricted just because people do not have access to parks or gyms. Those interested in leading a healthy lifestyle can simply [exercise at home](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-gyms-exercise-social-distancing/608278/).
1.5.5.2.3. Pro: For many people, leaving the house to exercise can provide an [extra boost of motivation and mental space](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-gyms-exercise-social-distancing/608278/), without which it would be difficult for them to get through their day.
1.5.5.2.4. Con: People can still take walks, run, hike and bike around their neighborhood, provided they maintain a [safe distance](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-gyms-exercise-social-distancing/608278/) from others around them.
1.5.6. Con: -> See 1.5.3.1.3.
1.5.7. Con: People will recover from the psychological effects quickly.
1.5.7.1. Pro: Other pandemics have been hyped, and people no longer fear those viruses, such as SARS or the bird flu.
1.5.7.1.1. Con: SARS infected [just over 8000 people and killed just 774](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/deadly-sars-virus-history-2003-in-photos-2020-2?r=US&IR=T). While tragic for those people, very few people were directly impacted by it in any substantive way.
1.5.7.1.2. Con: H5N1 Avian Flu [does not easily spread between humans](https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-\(avian-and-other-zoonotic\)#humans), at least yet. Since the first human outbreak in 1997, it has killed millions of poultry birds, but just [359 people between 2003 and 2012](http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/EN_GIP_20120810CumulativeNumberH5N1cases.pdf). As a result, it has not required meaningful changes or disruptions to most people's lives.
1.5.7.1.3. Con: People still fear the Avian flu, since the [EU](https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/1126/1180657-bird-flu-europe/) is on alert about a 2020 outbreak.
1.5.7.2. Con: The daily lives of people at risk of contracting the virus will change as they seek out protection. They would not do activities such as going out to public gatherings, having dinner with family as they keep themselves secure from the virus.
1.5.7.3. Con: People who lose family members in the pandemic are likely to grieve their loss for an extended period of time.
1.5.7.3.1. Pro: Many of the things which can help [ease](https://bakken-young.com/grief-and-distraction/) the grieving process, like social outings and working, are inaccessible because of the pandemic.
1.5.7.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.3.4.
1.5.7.3.3. Pro: One study from Yale suggests that it is normal for some people to experience symptoms of grief for [two years or more.](https://dying.lovetoknow.com/coping-grief/how-long-does-grief-last)
1.5.7.3.4. Con: People grieve the loss of family members for a variety of reasons everyday. This grieving process will be unchanged by the pandemic.
1.5.7.3.5. Con: This cycle of loss will only last for one generation, after which things will go back to normal.
1.5.7.3.5.1. Pro: Arguably, each generation has their own defining event that causes grief. For the many people this was WW2, or the Iraq Wars, the Indonesian tsunami, etc.
1.5.7.3.5.2. Pro: One [study](https://grievewellblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/how-long-the-evidence-on-griefs-duration/) found that grief symptoms of 288 bereaved people tended to peak four to six months after the loss, then decline over a two-year period.
1.5.7.4. Con: Entire chains of cinemas and other similar social venues may go bankrupt, reducing available venues to socialize even after the outbreak is over.
1.5.7.4.1. Pro: Many [restaurants](https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanktucker/2020/05/03/coronavirus-bankruptcy-tracker-these-major-companies-are-failing-amid-the-shutdown/) have been bankrupted during the pandemic.
1.5.7.4.2. Pro: Cinemas in particular may become permanently replaced by direct to digital delivery.
1.5.7.4.2.1. Con: While some owners may be bankrupted due to the pandemic, cinemas [are likely](https://www.ft.com/content/5f9961ea-c393-418b-b3cc-854bfd72e192) to survive as the demand for them, from consumers and moviemakers alike, will persist.
1.5.7.4.3. Con: Cinema audiences had been [declining for years](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41161056) prior to the outbreak. Bankruptcy for some chains is probably inevitable anyway.
1.5.7.4.4. Con: Cinemas are an inadequate place to socialize because people go there to watch films and so spend most of the time in silence. Therefore, if they go bankrupt, this will not significantly impact people's ability to socialize.
1.5.7.4.4.1. Con: Socialising will occur before and after the film. In the case of a short film and where the socialising occurs over a meal it's plausible that the socialising could last longer than the film.
1.5.7.5. Pro: The brain has ways of protecting itself, for example by [forgetting distressing memories.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161209081154.htm)
1.5.7.5.1. Con: The Covid-19 outbreak and the consequences of the outbreak have repeatedly been characterised as [unprecedented](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-330bn-of-government-backed-loans-for-businesses-11959156). It is unlikely that people will forget an extremely unusual situation.
1.5.7.5.1.1. Con: Society tends to lose interest in natural disasters very quickly, irrespective of the magnitude.
1.5.7.5.1.1.1. Pro: Worldwide interest in [New Zealand's recent volcano eruption](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50724944) was very [short-lived](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=new%20zealand%20volcano%20eruption).
1.5.7.5.1.1.2. Pro: [Global interest](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=australia%20bushfire) in [Australia's bushfires](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50951043) peaked quickly and then dropped back to almost nothing within 3 months.
1.5.7.5.1.1.2.1. Con: In Australia, however, there are a wide range of ongoing consequences and impacts that will reshape the economy, human geography and public health over decades. Just because those less affected forget and move on doesn't mean there aren't significant and lasting impacts on those closer to the crisis.
1.5.7.5.1.1.2.1.1. Pro: Smoke exposure is likely to have caused [long term public health consequences](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/01/the-long-term-effects-of-wildfires/).
1.5.7.5.1.1.2.1.2. Pro: Economic impacts will take time to calculate in full, but are [clearly significant](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/economic-impact-of-australias-bushfires-set-to-exceed-44bn-cost-of-black-saturday), and will render some industries and local towns and communities no longer viable.
1.5.7.5.2. Con: Given the length of time Covid-19 has been affecting society, and the fact that almost every single person has been affected in some way, it is unlikely that someone would be able to forget it.
1.5.7.5.3. Pro: One [study](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jul/13/health.medicineandhealth) suggests that people could learn to forget distressing memories.
1.5.7.5.3.1. Con: The study merely showed that volunteers could suppress memories of a distressing photographic image. This [does not mean](https://www.nhs.uk/news/neurology/memories-are-made-to-forget/) they would necessarily forget an experience that happened to them.
1.5.7.6. Con: Many [documentaries](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct0pf1) are likely to be made and many [books](https://undark.org/2020/03/06/coronavirus-books-amazon-outbreak/) are likely to be written about the Covid-19 pandemic. It will make it harder for people to forget the events even when the panic is over.
1.5.7.6.1. Pro: Many broadcasting companies have made documentaries about previous pandemics. It is likely that they would do the same for Covid-19.
1.5.7.6.1.1. Pro: A two-part BBC World Service radio documentary, "[In Sacrifice: The Story of Sars](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/stories-from-the-forgotten-heroes-of-sars-8757844.html)", follows the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome \(SARS\) disease, recalling the human stories of those who battled the pandemic.
1.5.7.6.1.2. Pro: ["Spillover"](https://www.pbs.org/spillover-zika-ebola-beyond/home/), a PBS Documentary, follows diseases such as the Zika virus and Ebola, that have been contracted by humans from animals.
1.5.7.6.1.3. Pro: ["Influenza of 1918"](https://www.amazon.com/Influenza-1918-Special-John-Jones/dp/B01I679AMW) is a documentary that follows the events of the pandemic of 1918.
1.5.7.6.2. Con: Individuals can choose not to watch documentaries or choose not to read books that are about the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.5.7.6.2.1. Pro: It is likely that individuals would choose not to watch documentaries or read about books that may cause them distress.
1.5.8. Con: There has been a boom in [teletherapy](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615390/coronavirus-online-therapy-mental-health-app-teletherapy/) as a result of the pandemic, making any adverse mental or physical effects more manageable.
1.5.8.1. Pro: Teletherapy is helping healthcare evolve positively, as it has multiple [benefits](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/millennial-media/201901/14-benefits-teletherapy-clients) over conventional therapy, such as time efficiency, enhanced privacy, better flexibility, etc.
1.5.8.1.1. Pro: Often, particularly when using third-party services, teletherapy is [cheaper](https://www.cnet.com/health/online-vs-in-person-therapy-cost-confidentiality-accessibility-and-more/) than in person counselling.
1.5.8.1.2. Pro: [Online psychological services](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577684/full#h5) help people without the risk of infection and are able to reach out to people who would otherwise be wary of seeking help due to the pandemic.
1.5.8.2. Pro: Therapy sessions held over Zoom or other apps are likely to continue [beyond](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/virtual-therapy-pandemic/611551/) the pandemic.
1.5.8.3. Con: Teletherapy is not as effective as conventional methods of therapy and will not be able to adequately manage the adverse effects.
1.5.8.3.1. Pro: A [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22706833) found that face-to-face group therapy was more effective than therapy conducted over the telephone.
1.5.9. Con: Many companies have made their apps and services free of charge to support people through the pandemic.
1.5.9.1. Con: Many people will not know to avail these services.
1.5.9.2. Con: There are few examples of companies who have kept their services free throughout the entire pandemic, as it has gone on much longer than many first anticipated.
1.5.9.3. Pro: Down Dog made its apps such as Yoga for Beginners, HIIT, Barre and 7 Minute Workout [completely free](https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/03/16/things-to-do-at-home-or-in-your-chicago-neighborhood/) until April 1st.
1.5.9.4. Pro: Millie’s Library, an e-book subscription service in South Korea, allowed [free access to its library](https://qz.com/1815527/korean-e-book-startup-gives-coronavirus-patients-free-access/) of 50,000 titles until May 2020.
1.5.9.5. Pro: Headspace, a mindfulness and guided meditation app, is offering some meditation collections for [free](https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/29/apps-and-services-coronavirus/) for US healthcare professionals during the pandemic.
1.6. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic has lead to lasting improvements in healthcare.
1.6.1. Con: In many countries, the pandemic has lead to restricted [access to healthcare](https://www.who.int/news/item/13-10-2020-impact-of-covid-19-on-people%27s-livelihoods-their-health-and-our-food-systems) and nutrition.
1.6.1.1. Pro: The pandemic is likely to have increased [child and maternal mortality](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X\(20\)30229-1/fulltext) because of the resulting disruption in access to health systems and food.
1.6.1.1.1. Pro: The increased number of deaths are likely to be [even greater](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X\(20\)30326-0/fulltext) than predicted by this study as it does not include the number of stillbirths.
1.6.1.2. Pro: The pandemic is likely to lead to a increase in children's [malnutrition](https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736\(20\)31648-2/fulltext).
1.6.2. Con: The pandemic has negatively impacted [medical education](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242905) because of limitations with virtual learning.
1.6.2.1. Con: The pandemic has [accelerated](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2770075) a curriculum redesign, which will make medical education more relevant to today's world.
1.6.2.1.1. Pro: The UK rushed many [final year medical students](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/28/final-year-medical-student-frontline-coronavirus) to the frontline, an experience which will serve them in their future medical careers.
1.6.2.2. Pro: There are skills in medical education which requires [hands on](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7306967/) learning, and cannot be acquired virtually.
1.6.2.3. Pro: Many [healthcare students](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-55659851) are forced to work in high-risk environments with limited provisions being made for their safety.
1.6.3. Con: The financial cost of dealing with the pandemic has limited the spending capacities of [healthcare systems](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521689620301142).
1.6.3.1. Con: In many countries, the government bore the extra [financial costs of responding to the pandemic](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52663523) by borrowing and fiscal spending.
1.6.3.1.1. Con: In the US, hospitals and health systems have faced [significant financial pressures](https://www.aha.org/guidesreports/2020-05-05-hospitals-and-health-systems-face-unprecedented-financial-pressures-due) due to the pandemic. The support offered by governments in this period has not been sufficient.
1.6.3.2. Pro: Losses in employer-sponsored health insurance as well as consumer spending have [negatively impacted](https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospitals-financial-recovery-will-be-tied-health-economy-and-after-covid-19) the financial situation of hospitals.
1.6.4. Pro: In some countries, responding to the pandemic can fill the gap in the [availability of healthcare workers](https://theconversation.com/covid-has-exposed-a-long-running-shortage-of-nurses-that-is-putting-nhs-patients-at-risk-150116) in general.
1.6.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.8.3.1.3.
1.6.4.2. Pro: The '[Ireland's Call](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ireland-s-call-initiative-to-conclude-following-repatriation-of-67-healthcare-workers-1.4254806)' initiative led to the repatriation of 67 healthcare workers to help with the fight against Covid-19.
1.6.4.3. Con: A [significant number](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/dec/22/lost-on-the-frontline-our-findings-to-date) of healthcare workers have died on account of contracting Covid-19. This would reduce the number of healthcare workers.
1.6.4.4. Con: Many healthcare workers have [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder](https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/covid-nurse-many-us-have-ptsd) on account of Covid-19, and so may not work in the future, after the pandemic.
1.6.5. Pro: The pandemic resulted in increase in the number of hospitals in many countries.
1.6.5.1. Pro: In order to accommodate the rising number of Covid-19 infected patients requiring care, [China](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/who-report-china-constructed-new-hospitals-in-days-and-other-lessons-from-their-response-to-the-coronavirus/) rapidly constructed new hospitals.
1.6.5.2. Pro: The UK has committed to building [40 new hospitals](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-confirms-37-billion-for-40-hospitals-in-biggest-hospital-building-programme-in-a-generation) by 2030.
1.6.5.3. Con: Many of these hospitals were [field hospitals](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/03/photos-of-field-hospitals-set-up-around-the-world-to-treat-coronavirus-patients.html), and so are, by their nature, temporary. Many have also since [closed](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/field-hospital-that-treated-coronavirus-patients-in-central-park-to-close/).
1.6.5.4. Con: Many temporary hospitals were not utilized [effectively](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/coronavirus-hospital-usta-queens.html).
1.6.6. Pro: The pandemic has resulted in increased innovation concerning approaches to healthcare.
1.6.6.1. Pro: The development of [telemedicine](https://vsee.com/what-is-telemedicine/) is likely to accelerate.
1.6.6.1.1. Pro: The [CDC and WHO](https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/28/coronavirus-telehealth-digital-health-us-hospitals-companies-face-challenges/) have urged clinics and hospitals to expand their telehealth services.
1.6.6.1.1.1. Pro: Expanding telehealth services is likely to [reduce the strain on physical healthcare services](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795318/), which are already operating above capacity in many countries.
1.6.6.1.1.1.1. Pro: In northern Italy, hospitals are running at [200% capacity](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8095835/Overwhelmed-Italian-hospitals-running-200-cent-capacity.html) with operating theaters hurriedly converted into intensive care units to treat the piling virus cases in the country.
1.6.6.1.1.1.2. Pro: Countries like Italy are using [tents and warehouses ​to treat patients](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-51883589/coronavirus-italian-patients-treated-in-tents-and-warehouse) because there is no more space to house patients in hospitals.
1.6.6.1.2. Pro: Telehealth companies have reported a [surge in use](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/telehealth-us-federal-response-coronavirus/index.html) following the Covid-19 outbreak.
1.6.6.1.3. Con: Development of telemedicine was already on the incline prior to the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.6.6.1.3.1. Pro: Prior to the outbreak, online healthcare in China was already projected to skyrocket from 11 billion yuan in 2016 to [198 billion yuan by 2026](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-24/china-is-connecting-doctors-and-patients-online).
1.6.6.1.3.2. Con: There was a [154% increase](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943a3.htm) in telehealth visits during March 2020 relative to March 2019. The pandemic has clearly accelerated this trend.
1.6.6.2. Pro: The pandemic has resulted in innovation concerning the application of [digital technology for public health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188042/) goals.
1.6.6.2.1. Pro: The pandemic has led to improvements in [virtual care](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7188042/).
1.6.6.2.2. Pro: The pandemic has increased funding towards technologies that help in [detecting infections](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/covid-19.html), which could be useful to detect bioweapons.
1.6.6.3. Pro: The pandemic allows the government to try out different approaches to healthcare.
1.6.6.3.1. Pro: We can observe and learn from how private versus public institutions handle the pandemic.
1.6.6.3.1.1. Pro: If the Covid-19 pandemic exposes the weaknesses in the USA's private healthcare system, then this could lead to the USA taking up a demonstrably better public system.
1.6.6.3.1.1.1. Pro: The weaknesses in the USA's private healthcare system are already revealing themselves.
1.6.6.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: Many Americans will face extremely [expensive bills](https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/02/the-coronavirus-exposes-our-health-care-systems-weaknesses-we-can-be-stronger/) if they get tested or treated for the virus, thus disincentivizing them to do so.
1.6.6.3.1.1.1.2. Pro: America's fragmented healthcare system is [ill-equipped to implement telemedicine](https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/28/coronavirus-telehealth-digital-health-us-hospitals-companies-face-challenges/) - a powerful tool against the spread of Covid-19 - because of the numerous and complicated reimbursement policies and state-based medical licensing challenges.
1.6.6.3.1.1.2. Pro: [41%](https://morningconsult.com/2020/03/13/coronavirus-universal-health-care/) of the American public is already more likely to support universal health care as a result of the pandemic.
1.6.6.3.1.1.3. Con: [70% of Americans](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html) already supported [Medicare-for-all](https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america) prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. As such, the pandemic is unlikely to be responsible for subsequent changes to the USA's healthcare system.
1.6.6.3.1.2. Con: Prior to this outbreak, it was already possible to evaluate how private versus public institutions respond to epidemics and pandemics.
1.6.6.3.1.2.1. Pro: The [bird flu and SARS outbreaks](https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/bird-flu-scare-and-the-importance-of-essential-public-health-functions) demonstrated that public healthcare systems fare better than fragmented private systems.
1.6.6.3.2. Pro: Governments continue repeating the mistakes they have made with other outbreaks for coronaviruses \(CoV\) and other pandemics; given this history, it is unlikely that change will now be spurred.
1.6.6.3.2.1. Pro: In the 1918 influenza outbreak, the national and local government of the US [severely mismanaged](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22148/) the epidemic. The current crisis is being similarly mishandled.
1.6.6.3.2.1.1. Pro: The current US government is [being petitioned](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-union/union-tells-trump-administration-to-take-coronavirus-seriously-for-government-workers-idUSKBN20T2SN) to take the crisis more seriously due to their failure to respond adequately at the onset of the crisis.
1.6.6.3.2.1.1.1. Pro: President Trump [reportedly failed](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/trump-inauguration-warning-scenario-pandemic-132797) to take the crisis seriously when he was first informed of its possibility.
1.6.6.3.2.1.2. Pro: The US government [downplayed](https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200315/coronavirus-pandemic-vs-spanish-flu--then-and-now) the seriousness of the 1918 influenza outbreak, claiming tuberculosis and STDs were more significant issues.
1.6.6.3.2.1.3. Pro: Hospitals were [overrun](https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200315/coronavirus-pandemic-vs-spanish-flu--then-and-now) during the 1918 influenza pandemic; hospitals in the US are rapidly approaching [being overwhelmed](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/18/coronavirus-ventilators-us-hospitals-johns-hopkins-mayo-clinic/5032523002/) in their attempts to deal with Covid-19.
1.6.6.3.2.2. Pro: The Chinese government tried to [silence](https://www.axios.com/timeline-the-early-days-of-chinas-coronavirus-outbreak-and-cover-up-ee65211a-afb6-4641-97b8-353718a5faab.html) the initial reporting of Covid-19, just like it did with the [2002 SARS epidemic](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92479/). This caused a delay in strict measures being adopted to contain the spread of the virus.
1.6.6.3.2.3. Pro: [Inaccurate information](http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3073467), such as that relating to asymptomatic patients, was a big problem for the MERS crisis in Korea, and the same is being repeated by the Korean government with Covid-19.
1.6.7. Pro: The pandemic has made microbiologists, epidemiologists, doctors, and social workers, [better prepared](https://theconversation.com/the-covid-19-pandemic-can-prepare-us-for-future-outbreaks-and-bioterrorism-136685) at dealing with a healthcare crisis.
1.6.7.1. Con: -> See 1.3.8.3.1.
1.6.7.2. Pro: The pandemic has led to [increased sharing of information](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-2019-ncov-science-virus-genome-who-research-collaboration-1.5446948) concerning the development of vaccines. The structures put in place will be useful for vaccine development in the future.
1.6.7.2.1. Pro: The technological breakthrough in vaccine development during the pandemic makes it possible to develop a [vaccine for the next possible pandemic in 100 days](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/vaccines-could-ready-within-100-days-next-pandemic-starting/).
1.6.7.3. Pro: Strategies that successfully reduced the rate of spread of Covid-19 can be carried out quicker and earlier during the [next pandemic](https://www.wsj.com/articles/lessons-next-pandemic-covid-response-act-quickly-coronavirus-11602430683).
1.6.7.3.1. Pro: [East Asian countries](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/prepare-for-the-next-pandemic-now-government-urged) better handled the pandemic through a variety of effective and innovative processes and infrastructure. These can now be replicated across the world to prevent and manage the next pandemic.
1.6.7.3.2. Con: A successful response to a global pandemic requires [extensive collaboration among governments](https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/how-prepared-are-we-for-the-next-pandemic-/75445923) and institutions across the globe at a level that is very hard to achieve.
1.6.7.4. Con: It is unlikely that medical institutions will receive the [funding required to develop vaccines and drugs](https://sifted.eu/articles/funding-drug-discovery/) that prepare us for the next pandemic.
1.6.7.5. Con: Much of a healthcare professional's ability to cope with a future crisis will depend on factors outside of their control, such as funding and resource allocation.
1.6.7.6. Pro: Healthcare professionals will have more experience working long-hours under intense pressure.
1.6.7.6.1. Con: As of October 2020, the long-hours had already [lead to an accelerated](https://www.cpr.org/2020/10/09/colorado-coronavirus-cases-rise-effects-on-frontline-health-care-workers-mental-health/) mass burnout among healthcare professionals. This will continue to worsen as the pandemic stretches on.
1.6.8. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic has improved public and political perceptions about the importance of public health.
1.6.8.1. Pro: There may be more investment in health and research sectors.
1.6.8.1.1. Pro: Between January and August, governments invested [$39.5 billion](https://www.devex.com/news/funding-covid-19-vaccines-a-timeline-97950) for vaccine research and development.
1.6.8.1.2. Con: Many research projects [rely on](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-020-00010-4) charities and other similar projects for fundraising. These have been harder to conduct due to the pandemic, resulting in diminished funds.
1.6.8.1.2.1. Pro: Cancer Research UK expects a [20%](https://pharmaphorum.com/news/cancer-research-uk-cuts-funding-as-covid-19-hits-income/) reduction in its funding in 2021.
1.6.8.1.2.2. Pro: Many groups have been forced to either [withdraw or defer](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/covid-19-cancels-charity-galas-and-walks-science-paying-price) grants due to the losses in funding caused by the pandemic.
1.6.8.1.3. Pro: The [Director-General](https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/09/1071822) of the WHO has urged countries to invest more in public health going forward.
1.6.8.2. Con: People will revert to previous conceptions about public health, as they have done so in the past.
1.6.8.2.1. Pro: The 1918 influenza outbreak was [quickly forgotten](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490545/) in the face of other threats that were deemed more pressing.
1.6.8.2.2. Pro: The 1958 and 1967 pandemics were viewed as [secondary threats](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490545/) and not consigned adequate importance despite the damage wreaked.
1.6.8.2.3. Con: -> See 1.3.8.3.2.3.
1.6.8.3. Con: Good health is linked to survival. Thus, health is already one of the biggest public concerns.
1.6.8.3.1. Pro: One poll shows that [healthcare is the top concern of American voters.](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/new_poll_shows_health_care_is_voters_top_concern.html)
1.6.8.3.2. Pro: In the run-up to the UK 2019 General Election, the National Health Service was considered [a priority](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-concerns-brexit-general-election-boris-johnson-corbyn-poll-a9211196.html) issue for voters.
1.6.8.4. Pro: The public has realised the importance of cleaning one's hands. This lesson will likely extend past the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.6.8.4.1. Con: The public has only realised how important cleaning one's hands are when there is an infectious disease to be especially wary of. Should a vaccine be found for Covid-19, it is likely that they will abandon this practice.
1.6.8.4.2. Pro: Social media, [memes](https://www.vox.com/2020/3/9/21162031/wash-your-hands-coronavirus-memes), and the [news](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/16/coronavirus-tips-slow-covid-19-spread-wash-hands-stay-home/5058412002/) are all reminding people to wash their hands regularly.
1.6.8.4.2.1. Con: If people are not constantly being given these reminders, it is less likely that individuals will make washing their hands a priority.
1.6.8.4.2.2. Pro: The National Health Service \(NHS\) in the UK have [produced a public information campaign](https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/nhs-coronavirus-hand-washing-government-approved-technique-explained-plus-best-20-second-songs-sing-2099030) around handwashing. They provide [guidelines](https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus-hand-washing-nhs-technique-explained-including-best-20-second-songs-2099030) for how hands should be washed, the ideal frequency of handwashing, and other informal advice.
1.6.8.4.3. Con: Even now, some people, including [healthcare workers](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/horizon-handwashing-audits-1.5870237), are not washing their hands in line with the guidelines. This shows that these lessons have not yet been learned and are thus unlikely to last.
1.6.8.4.4. Pro: [Disinfectant sales](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658361) have shot up since the outbreak.
1.6.8.4.4.1. Con: The outbreak is still happening. This could be a temporary surge.
1.6.8.4.4.2. Pro: Even by November 2020, disinfectant sales remain [extremely high.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/clorox-profit-more-than-doubles-continuing-gains-from-disinfectants-11604331733)
1.6.8.4.5. Pro: A [survey](https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/hand-hygiene/survey-says-consumer-awareness-importance-hand-hygiene-grossly-exaggerated) found that previously, a significant number of Americans were unaware of the benefits of washing one's hands and practiced poor hand hygiene.
1.7. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic will lead to improvements for the environment.
1.7.1. Pro: The pandemic presents a unique opportunity for countries to devise [policies](https://theconversation.com/covid-19-recovery-is-an-opportunity-to-tackle-worsening-climate-crisis-new-report-151242) that improve public health and the economy in a way that addresses issues concerning climate change.
1.7.1.1. Pro: Many countries across the world have called for a [green recovery](https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/themes/green-recovery). This entails recovery from the pandemic with a focus on mitigating and addressing climate change.
1.7.1.1.1. Pro: The pandemic has increased the possibility of the [Green New Deal](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/09/the-guardian-view-on-a-green-new-deal-save-jobs-and-the-planet) in many countries. The deal seeks to achieve economic recovery through policies that address issues of climate change.
1.7.1.1.1.1. Pro: In April 2020, the European Parliament called for the inclusion of the [European Green Deal](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20200415IPR77109/covid-19-meps-call-for-massive-recovery-package-and-coronavirus-solidarity-fund) in the recovery plan for the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.7.1.1.1.2. Pro: In the US, there were proposals to include the [Green New Deal](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/03/coronavirus-economic-recovery-green-stimulus-climate-change/608650/) in the pandemic recovery program.
1.7.1.1.2. Con: The [UK's call for a green recovery](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/07/the-guardian-view-on-a-post-covid-19-recovery-not-much-building-back-greener) was criticized by experts as lacking the regulatory mechanism needed to reduce dependency on coal, oil, and gas.
1.7.1.1.3. Pro: In June 2020, [OECD and UN institutions](https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4016111/oecd-institutions-demand-green-economic-recovery-covid-19) demanded that countries adopt green economic recovery from the pandemic.
1.7.1.1.4. Con: Despite calls for green recovery, many nations that contribute significantly to climate change continue to invest in [industries that are carbon-intensive](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/11/five-post-trump-obstacles-to-a-global-green-recovery).
1.7.2. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic might distract people from long-term ecological issues such as [deforestation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_the_environment#cite_note-126).
1.7.3. Pro: The response to the Covid-19 pandemic is aiding the battle against global warming because it has [significantly curbed global emissions](https://theconversation.com/how-changes-brought-on-by-coronavirus-could-help-tackle-climate-change-133509).
1.7.3.1. Con: The pandemic has also provided cover for illegal deforestation in the [Amazon rainforest](https://abcnews.go.com/International/deforestation-amazon-rainforest-accelerates-amid-covid-19-pandemic/story?id=70526188) that can contribute to emissions.
1.7.3.2. Con: The pandemic hampered [environmental diplomacy](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/04/01/cop26-climate-talks-postponed-2021-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/) concerning the global reduction in greenhouse gasses.
1.7.3.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.3.
1.7.3.3. Pro: The pandemic has increased practices such as telecommuting, remote working, and [virtual conferences](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01521-3), which are likely to reduce transport-led emissions.
1.7.3.4. Pro: Some governments have encouraged people to commute on foot or by [cycling](https://theconversation.com/how-coronavirus-made-2020-the-year-of-the-electric-bike-143158) instead of using crowded public transport systems which increase the likelihood of Covid-19 infections.
1.7.3.4.1. Pro: In the UK, doctors have [prescribed cycling](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53541866) to improve health and also to help fight against the pandemic.
1.7.3.4.2. Pro: Some countries reported an increase in the number of [bicycle sales](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53541866) during the pandemic.
1.7.3.4.2.1. Con: In [some](https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/03/06/1996443/0/en/Global-e-Bike-Market-Outlook-2020-2025-Giant-Bicycles-Expected-to-Be-the-Largest-Player.html) [countries](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/03/02/when-will-e-bike-sales-overtake-sales-of-bicycles-for-the-netherlands-thats-now/?sh=213e34632e4a), the use of e-bikes was growing already before the pandemic. This suggests that the trend was impacted by reasons other than the pandemic.
1.7.3.4.3. Con: It is likely that once the pandemic fades away, people will resume using public transport to commute instead of walking or cycling.
1.7.3.5. Pro: China's lockdown led to a [25% reduction in energy use and emissions](https://theconversation.com/how-changes-brought-on-by-coronavirus-could-help-tackle-climate-change-133509) compared to the same two-week period the year before.
1.7.4. Pro: There has been a significant decrease in pollution in certain countries.
1.7.4.1. Pro: Lockdowns in response to the pandemic have resulted in a significant reduction of [noise pollution](https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.abd2438).
1.7.4.2. Con: During the pandemic, some governments suspended critical laws that limited environmental pollution.
1.7.4.2.1. Pro: The [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/27/trump-pollution-laws-epa-allows-companies-pollute-without-penalty-during-coronavirus) in the US suspended enforcement of certain environmental protection laws during the pandemic. This meant that polluters were allowed to ignore some regulations by claiming that the violations were caused by the pandemic.
1.7.4.2.2. Pro: During the pandemic, the [Indian government](https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/modi-govt-weakening-environment-laws-ministry-from-day-1-jairam-ramesh-118111900718_1.html) passed legislation that weakened environmental regulations concerning pollution.
1.7.4.3. Pro: In Venice, canal water began [clearing up](https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/coronavirus-shutdowns-have-unintended-climate-benefits-n1161921) after the lockdown was first initiated.
1.7.4.3.1. Pro: Reduced boat traffic in Venice meant [wildlife](https://time.com/5824807/jellyfish-in-venice/) began to be visible in the canals again.
1.7.4.3.2. Con: This does not mean that the water quality in Venice's canals has [necessarily changed](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html).
1.7.4.4. Con: Masses of discarded [single-use surgical masks](https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/03/17/coronavirus-face-masks-could-have-a-devastating-effect-on-the-environment/) have polluted a beach near Hong Kong.
1.7.4.4.1. Pro: Sea-birds can become [tangled up](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54057799) in masks.
1.7.4.5. Pro: The Covid-19 pandemic led to a [huge drop](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/coronavirus-pandemic-leading-to-huge-drop-in-air-pollution) in air pollution in March 2020.
1.7.4.5.1. Con: While satellites found decreases in [one air pollutant](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2020/03/05/how-the-coronavirus-is-and-is-not-affecting-the-environment/), nitrogen dioxide \(NO2\), in March 2020, this doesn’t mean the air was free of all pollution.
1.7.4.5.1.1. Pro: Researchers have indicated that a measurable change in NO2 [does not necessarily mean](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2020/03/05/how-the-coronavirus-is-and-is-not-affecting-the-environment/) that air quality is suddenly healthy for the planet.
1.7.4.5.2. Con: In countries like China, there was a rise of sulphur dioxide \(SO2\) concentrations in February 2020 due to an [increase in human cremation](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3874013).
1.7.4.5.3. Con: In January 2021, a study showed that the effects of the first lockdown on [air pollution](https://theconversation.com/first-lockdowns-effect-on-air-pollution-was-overstated-our-study-reveals-153152) were overstated.
1.7.4.5.4. Pro: Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere over Italy [fell sharply](https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/03/13/italy-emissions-coronavirus/?arc404=true) in March 2020 after the lockdown was instituted.
1.7.4.5.5. Pro: In New York, the levels of carbon monoxide reduced by [nearly 50%](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51944780) in March 2020, compared to 2019.
1.7.4.5.6. Pro: The air pollution in London [decreased](https://fortune.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-london-lockdown-air-pollution/) in March 2020. In April, the pollution in the busiest traffic spots dropped by [50%.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/23/toxic-air-over-london-falls-by-50-at-busiest-traffic-spots)
1.7.4.5.7. Pro: Air pollution has a number of negative effects that will now be reduced.
1.7.4.5.7.1. Pro: Air pollution causes [acid rain](https://www.airgo2.com/air-pollution/effects/acid-rain/), which harms wildlife and the environment.
1.7.4.5.7.2. Pro: Reduced levels of nitrogen dioxide decrease rates of respiratory illnesses, such as [asthma](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/coronavirus-pandemic-leading-to-huge-drop-in-air-pollution).
1.7.4.5.7.3. Pro: In the UK, [400,000 lives](https://fortune.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-london-lockdown-air-pollution/) are lost every year as a result of air pollution.
1.7.4.5.8. Pro: Nitrogen dioxide levels across eastern and central China were [10-30%](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/coronavirus-pandemic-leading-to-huge-drop-in-air-pollution) lower in March 2020 than normal.
1.7.4.6. Pro: A radical decrease in pollution levels during the outbreak will prove that, in the future, humans can have a significant positive effect on the environment by changing their behaviour.
1.7.4.6.1. Pro: Given large swathes of society have continued functioning throughout the pandemic, this shows that with a reorientation of priorities, climate change can be tackled.
1.7.5. Con: As a result of the financial impact of the outbreak on businesses, important [environmental regulations may be dismantled](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/coronavirus-climate-crisis-emissions-flights-environment-a9406486.html) to mitigate the damage.
1.7.5.1. Con: As governments come to the financial aid of businesses, they may acquire the financial and political leverage to implement their climate change policies.
1.7.5.1.1. Pro: The [Lufthansa](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52801131) bailout has given the German government a significant stake in the company, and the government could use this to pressure the company into becoming more environmentally friendly.
1.7.5.1.2. Con: In practice, governments are [failing](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/30/link-climate-pledges-to-26bn-airline-bailout-say-europes-greens-environment) to attach environmental conditions to the rescue deals.
1.7.5.1.3. Pro: Pressure has come from [NGOs](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/15/leading-uk-charities-urge-pm-seek-green-recovery-covid-19) to attach conditions to bailouts so that the economic recovery will help environmental causes.
1.7.5.1.4. Pro: The EU's 1 trillion euro budget proposal and €750 billion recovery plan seeks to reserve 25% of EU spending for [climate-friendly expenditure.](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/do-no-harm-eu-recovery-fund-has-green-strings-attached/)
1.7.5.2. Pro: In an attempt to stave off recession, countries are pouring money into [fossil fuel companies](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/09/revealed-covid-recovery-plans-threaten-global-climate-hopes).
1.7.5.3. Pro: Europe’s largest airline association is advocating that the [EU's new aviation taxes](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-28/eu-takes-aim-at-aviation-fuel-with-tax-clampdown-on-co2-output) - designed to reduce emissions - should be [deferred or waived](https://a4e.eu/publications/european-governments-must-act-now-to-reduce-covid-19-impact-on-aviation/).
1.7.5.3.1. Con: Airlines for Europe were against the EU's aviation taxes [before](https://www.euractiv.com/section/aviation/news/nine-eu-countries-urge-new-commission-to-tax-aviation-more/) the pandemic began.
1.7.5.4. Pro: Many countries have abandoned, or are in the process of abandoning their green projects in order to fight the pandemic.
1.7.5.4.1. Pro: The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic recently urged the European Union to [abandon its landmark green law](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/czech-pm-urges-eu-to-ditch-green-deal-amid-virus/) focusing on carbon neutrality as it grapples with the virus outbreak.
1.7.6. Con: Any environmental improvement due to decreased economic activity will be only temporary.
1.7.6.1. Con: The pandemic will lead many to rethink society's [relationship with nature](https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/coronavirus-nature-humans/).
1.7.6.1.1. Pro: The pandemic has [shattered the illusion of security](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/25/covid-19-is-natures-wake-up-call-to-complacent-civilisation) brought about by modern society.
1.7.6.1.1.1. Pro: Some are realising that society is ultimately at the mercy of Mother Nature, prompting them to [take climate change more seriously](https://discoversociety.org/2020/04/21/can-covid-19-help-us-reconfigure-our-relationship-with-the-natural-world-and-tackle-the-climate-crisis/).
1.7.6.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.7.4.6.
1.7.6.2. Pro: According to the [UN](https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=21795#.X7xWFS2ZMWo), carbon dioxide levels have reached record highs as of November 2020.
1.7.6.3. Pro: Experts have warned that the unintended pollution declines from the virus outbreak are just [temporary](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html).
1.7.6.3.1. Pro: The International Energy Agency has warned that the virus will [weaken global investments](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html) in clean energy and industry efforts to reduce emissions.
1.7.6.3.1.1. Pro: Most economic stimulus packages that governments are contemplating are likely to have a [negative](https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/09/coronavirus-green-economic-recovery) impact on the environment.
1.7.6.3.1.2. Pro: Companies that are hurting financially due to the Covid-19 pandemic will likely [delay or cancel climate-friendly projects](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/13/coronavirus-could-weaken-climate-change-action-hit-clean-energy.html) that require investment up front.
1.7.6.3.1.3. Pro: Countries like the US continue to [consider bailing out](https://www.technologyreview.com/f/615344/trump-is-considering-a-fossil-fuel-bailout-amid-coronavirus-worries/) fossil fuel companies and [investing in](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/488422-trump-administration-prepares-to-buy-30m-barrels-of-oil-amid) fossil fuel infrastructure amidst the pandemic.
1.7.6.3.1.3.1. Pro: In the US, in March 2020, the Trump administration was prepared to buy [30 million barrels of oil](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/488422-trump-administration-prepares-to-buy-30m-barrels-of-oil-amid) during the industry slump.
1.7.6.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.7.5.4.
1.7.6.3.3. Pro: Air travel is expected to [bounce back](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html) after the pandemic subsides, and the industry’s emissions are expected to triple by 2050.
1.7.6.3.4. Con: Some companies are being forced to trial [remote working](https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2020/03/19/coronavirus-encouraged-pro-climate-behaviors-heres-how-earth-day-celebrations-could-help--sustain-them/#50f390f7b7b5). If effective, then they may implement a more permanent remote working policy. This would reduce the numbers of people commuting to work everyday.
1.7.6.3.4.1. Pro: An [increase](https://www.virtualvocations.com/blog/telecommuting-survival/8-environmental-benefits-of-remote-work/) in people working from home also reduces paper usage and reduces overall emissions.
1.7.6.4. Pro: Environmental improvement was the consequence of measures put in place to deal with a temporary crisis. Once these measures are removed, it is likely that the environmental impact of humans will be as detrimental as before the crisis.
1.7.6.4.1. Con: During this temporary crisis, people may realise how important it is to avoid the far more permanent crisis of climate change. As such, they may be more committed to adopting robust environmental measures after the pandemic subsides.
1.8. Con: Even though it will take time, the economy will recover. Therefore, it will not have a lasting impact on the economy.
1.8.1. Con: The pandemic has [disrupted global supply chains](https://www.scmr.com/article/covid_19_exposes_vulnerabilities_in_the_global_supply_chain1) which will need time to be revived.
1.8.1.1. Pro: Poorly managed [supply chains](https://www.wsj.com/articles/commentary-supply-chain-risks-from-the-coronavirus-demand-immediate-action-11582054704) will need some time to deal with the ["whiplash" effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect).
1.8.1.2. Pro: Small companies involved in supply chains have been [bankrupted](https://www.womply.com/blog/report-how-many-local-businesses-have-had-to-close-due-to-covid-19/).
1.8.1.2.1. Con: Governments are providing [financial assistance](https://hbr.org/2020/08/a-financial-crisis-is-looming-for-smaller-suppliers) to small companies so that they can avoid bankruptcy.
1.8.1.2.1.1. Pro: The UK government is [backing bounce-back-loans](https://voxeu.org/article/support-small-businesses-amid-covid-19) to ensure that banks are willing to loan money to small businesses.
1.8.1.2.1.2. Pro: The European Union, Japan, and the United States have implemented a [variety of fiscal support programs](https://www.oecd.org/finance/COVID-19-Government-Financing-Support-Programmes-for-Businesses.pdf) to help small businesses avoid bankruptcy \(p. 13\).
1.8.1.2.2. Pro: Between February and April of 2020, the number of active small business owners has dropped by [22%](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27309/w27309.pdf).
1.8.1.3. Con: Supply chains have been interrupted in the past, but this has only [created the impetus](https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/articles/Global-value-chains-under-threat/) to build [supply chain resilience](https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/articles/the-five-pillars-of-supply-chain-resilience/).
1.8.1.4. Pro: Global supply chains may see permanent changes, as countries come under pressure to [reduce their dependence](https://hbr.org/2020/09/global-supply-chains-in-a-post-pandemic-world) on other countries.
1.8.1.4.1. Con: The extent to which corporations can do this is [limited](https://hbr.org/2020/09/global-supply-chains-in-a-post-pandemic-world), since consumers will still want low prices, and this will be unachievable in higher-income countries where companies would have to guarantee a higher minimum wage and working standards.
1.8.2. Pro: The global economy is already [recovering faster](https://hbr.org/2020/11/why-the-global-economy-is-recovering-faster-than-expected) than many economic experts had expected.
1.8.2.1. Pro: Many developing countries have been effective in dealing with the pandemic and are showing [resilience](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/global-south-covid19-pandmeic-global-recovery/) to the long-term economic downturn.
1.8.2.2. Con: The pandemic has caused a [global recession](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/06/08/covid-19-to-plunge-global-economy-into-worst-recession-since-world-war-ii#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20June%208%2C%202020%20%E2%80%94,shrink%20by%205.2%25%20this%20year.), the economic impacts of which are likely to remain for a long time.
1.8.2.2.1. Con: Over a long enough period, a [recession](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032015/are-economic-recessions-inevitable.asp) is just a blip. It doesn’t change anything permanently.
1.8.2.2.1.1. Pro: On average, it takes between [6 and 16 months](https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/how-long-does-a-recession-last?) for a recession to end.
1.8.2.2.1.2. Pro: The [cycle](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1599/economics/cyclical-economic-activity/) of our current economic system results in a recession every 8-10 years. Even the deepest recessions tend to by followed by a period of economic growth.
1.8.2.2.1.3. Con: While there may not be a permanent economic change associated with a recession, the human cost can be lasting. Increases in [child mortality](https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/2/2/e000157.full.pdf), for example, are related to economic downturns.
1.8.2.2.2. Pro: It is projected that the global economy will contract by [7.6%](http://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/june-2020/) in 2020.
1.8.2.2.2.1. Con: The [OECD](https://www.dw.com/en/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-global-economic-recovery-for-2021/a-55775341) estimated that vaccine rollouts and government support will make it likely that global GDP will return to pre-pandemic levels by 2021.
1.8.2.2.3. Pro: A [multi-country econometric analysis](https://voxeu.org/article/economic-consequences-covid-19-multi-country-analysis) of the direct and indirect effects of the Covid-19 pandemic suggested that the global recession is likely to remain for a long time.
1.8.2.2.4. Pro: Capital formation will likely be [reduced](https://hbr.org/2020/03/understanding-the-economic-shock-of-coronavirus), which could damage labour and productivity.
1.8.3. Con: Some industries and businesses are expected to face long-term or irreversible economic damage.
1.8.3.1. Con: Many businesses can operate remotely during lockdowns.
1.8.3.1.1. Con: Although businesses may be able to operate remotely in some capacity, this does not negate the point that they will likely be less efficient during this period and thus require some time to recover when transitioning back to more regular working patterns.
1.8.3.1.1.1. Con: Remote workers are actually [more](http://36145) productive at home.
1.8.3.1.2. Con: Many businesses cannot become remote during lockdown, such as restaurants and cinemas.
1.8.3.1.3. Pro: The number of people working remotely has been trending upwards for some time and this was likely to continue, independent of the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.8.3.1.3.1. Pro: Over the past few years, [technological advances](https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2014/12/20/why-is-everyone-so-busy) already contributed to many people working from home.
1.8.3.1.3.1.1. Pro: The [videoconferencing](https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/video-conferencing-market-100293) market has been expanding since 2015.
1.8.3.1.3.1.2. Pro: In 2018, [84% of British companies](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/ready-and-enabled/work-from-home/) offered the technological facilities to allow people to work remotely.
1.8.3.1.3.1.3. Pro: The [rollout of the high-speed 5G network](https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/5g-uk) in the UK will dramatically increase the [efficiency and ease](https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&articleId=2055297) of working remotely.
1.8.3.1.3.2. Pro: According to [one survey](https://buffer.com/state-of-remote-work-2019), 99% of respondents claimed that they would like to work remotely at least some of the time for the rest of their careers.
1.8.3.1.3.3. Pro: Amongst the US population, working at home practices have [increased by 173% since 2005.](https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics) This suggests that with more time, people who are currently unable to work remotely will also be able to.
1.8.3.1.3.4. Con: In November 2019, the US Social Security Administration [terminated](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/business/retirement/coronavirus-social-security.html) a work-from-home pilot program that allowed 12.500 employees to work remotely one day per week.
1.8.3.1.3.5. Pro: According to one [study](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/70-percent-of-people-globally-work-remotely-at-least-once-a-week-iwg-study.html), 70% of people globally work remotely at least once a week.
1.8.3.1.4. Pro: Many people are working from home who otherwise wouldn't.
1.8.3.1.4.1. Con: -> See 1.8.3.1.3.
1.8.3.1.4.2. Con: Working remotely does not necessarily mean that people are spending most of their time isolated from others.
1.8.3.1.4.2.1. Pro: An individual may have a partner who also works remotely and they may conduct the majority of their work in the company of one another.
1.8.3.1.4.2.2. Pro: Remote workers often work in populated environments such as [cafes](https://remoteyear.com/blog/what-is-remote-work).
1.8.3.1.4.2.3. Con: 21% of remote workers say that [loneliness is the biggest struggle](https://open.buffer.com/state-remote-work-2018/#satisfied), indicating that isolation from others is a real problem.
1.8.3.1.4.3. Pro: A radical shift in working environment changes who the worker comes into contact with on a day-to-day basis.
1.8.3.1.5. Pro: The UK government has [recommended](https://www.acas.org.uk/coronavirus) that employers allow individuals to work from home.
1.8.3.1.5.1. Con: The UK government recommending something has no impact on whether a business has the capabilities to carry out their operations remotely or not.
1.8.3.1.5.2. Con: Many employees are [unable to work from home](https://www.epi.org/blog/black-and-hispanic-workers-are-much-less-likely-to-be-able-to-work-from-home/), forcing them into unemployment.
1.8.3.1.5.2.1. Con: -> See 1.8.3.1.3.3.
1.8.3.2. Con: Businesses will learn from this crisis and be better prepared to respond to other crises in future.
1.8.3.2.1. Pro: Covid-19 has changed how businesses view and engage with [financial risk](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-how-the-pandemic-is-changing-views-on-financial-risk/).
1.8.3.2.1.1. Pro: The pandemic has taught [businesses](https://www.ajc.com/lifestyles/economic-crises-aren-new-why-are-missing-the-lessons-them/tr9yQJvqAsOBcZmmqgNpkJ/) to actively keep a [rainy day fund](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/07/no-1-personal-finance-lesson-to-take-away-from-the-coronavirus.html) to ensure that they have some finances to fall back on in the future.
1.8.3.2.1.2. Con: The pandemic has considerably increased risk for [fintech](https://www.bobsguide.com/guide/news/2020/Dec/21/risk-rise-in-pandemic-hit-fintech-sector/) businesses which are not fully prepared to deal with these risks.
1.8.3.2.2. Con: If the nature of a future crisis diverges from this crisis, it is unlikely businesses will be able to implement similar techniques in their response to the crisis.
1.8.3.3. Con: Even if some sectors were damaged by the pandemic, others benefitted from it. This can neutralize the overall economic harm.
1.8.3.3.1. Pro: The pandemic drove unprecedented growth in [digital financial services](https://blogs.imf.org/2020/11/05/bridging-the-digital-divide-to-scale-up-the-covid-19-recovery/).
1.8.3.4. Pro: A survey in September 2020 showed that [17% of businesses](https://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/knowledge/articles/2020/09/one-fifth-small-businesses-wont-survive-second-coronavirus-lockdown/) in the UK would not survive another lockdown.
1.8.3.5. Pro: A [study](https://www.nber.org/papers/w26989.pdf) in March 2020 showed that more than 100,000 small businesses in the US shut down permanently in the aftermath of the pandemic.
1.8.3.6. Pro: There will be substantial and sustained damage to the tourism industry.
1.8.3.6.1. Con: The tourism industry will recover eventually, once the lockdown is finished.
1.8.3.6.1.1. Pro: Once lockdown is over, people may be particularly keen to travel after having been deprived of this for some time.
1.8.3.6.1.2. Pro: Some travel agencies have allowed tourists to [postpone](https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/mar/13/holiday-bookings-fall-coronavirus-tourism-industry-chalenge) their travel plans. These will likely be rearranged soon after the lockdown.
1.8.3.6.1.2.1. Con: Many airlines [failed](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/16/airlines-failure-to-offer-covid-cash-refunds-investigated-by-uk-regulator) to offer refunds to travelers who had their flights cancelled.
1.8.3.6.1.3. Con: Some regions' crisis management has been [harshly](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/austria-ski-resort-ischgl-coronavirus-intl/index.html) criticized. This may have shaken tourists' trust for the long term.
1.8.3.6.1.3.1. Pro: To facilitate the recovery of the tourism industry, [rebuilding trust](https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v2/publications/2020/To_Recovery_and_Beyond-The_Future_of_Travel_and_Tourism_in_the_Wake_of_COVID-19.pdf) has been identified as a key point \(p. 17\).
1.8.3.6.1.4. Con: It is believed that the tourism industry will be impacted into [2021](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-13/coronavirus-s-effect-on-tourism-will-carry-into-2021-experts-say), which is a long period of time.
1.8.3.6.1.4.1. Pro: According to recent reports, the tourist industry is expect to [struggle well into 2021](http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/rebuilding-tourism-for-the-future-covid-19-policy-responses-and-recovery-bced9859/), which would mean an effect of at least 1.5 years.
1.8.3.6.1.4.2. Pro: Due to the first and second wave of infections worldwide, lockdowns and self-isolation have dominated the entirety of 2020. With [a third wave of infections](https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-who-warns-of-covid-19-third-wave-says-europe-failed-to-learn-from-asia/a-55690325) expected, lockdowns will continue into 2021 for many countries.
1.8.3.6.1.5. Pro: It is likely that once large populations are vaccinated, [international travel](https://theconversation.com/a-vaccine-will-be-a-game-changer-for-international-travel-but-its-not-everything-151214) for tourism will return to pre-pandemic levels.
1.8.3.6.2. Pro: The damage incurred by the global tourism industry by March 2020 was estimated to be as much as [$1 trillion](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/coronavirus-could-cause-1-trillion-damage-to-tourism/1774205).
1.8.3.6.3. Pro: Due to the pandemic, tourists are no longer present to make use of facilities such as hotels, tour guides etc. This has caused many immediate consequences that cannot be reversed.
1.8.3.6.3.1. Pro: The EU reported [2 million less overnight stays](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/coronavirus-louvre-europe-economy-1790850) in the first two months of 2020, a loss totalling around €2 billion \($2.2 billion\).
1.8.3.6.3.2. Pro: Compared to the previous year, hotel bookings in Spain have [fallen significantly](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1167832/covid-19-impact-in-the-occupation-hotel-in-spain/) due the pandemic. In March 2020, bookings [fell by 20-40%](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-tourism/coronavirus-impact-is-overwhelming-spains-hotels-association-says-idUSKBN20T2J1). As tourism accounts for 12% of its GDP, a [nearly 2%](https://www.sefofuncas.com/Challenges-for-Spanish-industry-under-COVID-19-and-beyond/The-blow-to-tourism-and-the-recovery-of-the-Spanish-economy#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20the%20loss%20is%20estimated,two%20percentage%20points%20of%20GDP.) loss in GDP may result.
1.8.3.6.3.3. Pro: Between [June to August 2020](https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/covid-19-impact-italy-s-tourism-sector-estimated-to-shrink-by-100-bn-euros-120090800362_1.html), overnight stays in hotels in Italy decreased by 32%. Italy's economy has suffered a 36.7 billion euros loss in 2020 due to the losses in the tourism industry.
1.8.3.6.4. Pro: Closing popular cultural institutions could impact the tourism industry.
1.8.3.6.4.1. Con: Given the closing of many cultural institutions for long periods, it is likely that these institutions will be especially popular when they do open again.
1.8.3.6.4.2. Con: By April 2020, [most countries](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/more-than-nine-in-ten-people-worldwide-live-in-countries-with-travel-restrictions-amid-covid-19/) had restricted people's movements. When governments deem the threat has passed and ease restrictions, popular cultural institutions will also be able to reopen.
1.8.3.6.4.3. Pro: Negative impacts on the tourism industry will deeply affect many countries, whose [economies are completely dependent on tourism](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-10-countries-most-reliant-on-tourism.html).
1.8.3.6.4.3.1. Pro: [Millions of people will be out of jobs](https://skift.com/2016/03/27/the-travel-industry-now-supports-nearly-10-percent-of-worlds-jobs/) if the tourism industry collapses.
1.8.3.6.4.3.1.1. Pro: As of 2016, the travel and tourism industry supported nearly [10% of the world’s jobs](https://skift.com/2016/03/27/the-travel-industry-now-supports-nearly-10-percent-of-worlds-jobs/).
1.8.3.6.4.4. Pro: Since [March 2020](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/covid-19-prompts-more-cultural-institutions-to-shut-doors), theaters and cultural institutions have been closing for long stretches of time.
1.8.3.6.4.4.1. Pro: The Metropolitan Museum of Art was closed between [March 2020](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/arts/design/met-layoffs-virus.html) to [24 August 2020.](https://www.metmuseum.org/press/news/2020/the-met-reopening-plans)
1.8.3.6.4.4.2. Pro: [London's West End](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/theater/london-theaters-closed-lockdown.html) has been closed since March 2020, and will likely remain closed for the full duration of the pandemic.
1.8.3.6.4.4.3. Con: Cultural institutions regularly close for extended periods of time without this having a noticeable long-term impact.
1.8.3.6.4.4.3.1. Pro: In November 2019, the UK's National Gallery announced that it was [closing for three years](https://londonist.com/london/news/national-portrait-gallery-closure) in order for refurbishments to take place.
1.8.3.6.4.4.3.2. Pro: In 2019, the Museum of Modern Art in New York [closed for four months](https://www.dezeen.com/2019/02/06/moma-summer-closure-expansion/).
1.8.3.6.4.4.4. Con: [Attendance](https://hyperallergic.com/421968/is-art-museum-attendance-declining-across-the-us/) at art museums in the US has been falling for years, indicating that the public are growing disinterested in art institutions anyway.
1.8.3.6.4.4.5. Pro: [The Louvre](https://www.louvre.fr/en/covid-19-advice-visitors#:~:text=In%20line%20with%20the%20measures), which welcomes [10 million visitors](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46748282) a year, closed amid fears over Covid-19.
1.8.4. Con: The pandemic is having a wide-ranging and severe negative impact on global financial markets.
1.8.4.1. Con: Markets are resilient. They have [recovered](https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/01/news/economy/recession-anniversary/index.html) from major shocks already, such as that of the [2008 financial crisis](https://www.thebalance.com/2008-financial-crisis-3305679) and will recover from the pandemic as well.
1.8.4.1.1. Con: The economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic are likely to cause long-term, or even permanent, damage to the [economic capacities](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41301-020-00262-0) of many countries.
1.8.4.1.1.1. Pro: Many small businesses have gone [bankrupt](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-11/small-firms-die-quietly-leaving-thousands-of-failures-uncounted) due to the pandemic and are unlikely to come back.
1.8.4.1.1.1.1. Con: As of September 2020, the percentage of businesses going bankrupt [has decreased](https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/21-041_a9e75f26-6e50-4eb7-84d8-89da3614a6f9.pdf) to levels lower than that of the preceding year \(p. 14\).
1.8.4.1.2. Con: There are features of the current recession that are qualitatively different from the [previous recessions](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41301-020-00262-0). Therefore, we shouldn't make economic predictions based on trends from previous recessions.
1.8.4.1.2.1. Pro: The 2008 recession began with a crisis in the financial and banking sector which then [impacted the real economy](https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp200923.htm). The Covid-19 pandemic, on the other hand, began with a crisis in the real economy which then impacted the financial and banking sector. This is why the current crisis is different from the 2008 crisis and cannot be compared.
1.8.4.1.2.1.1. Pro: A crisis in the [real economy](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-economic-crash-2008-financial-crisis-worse/) caused due to the pandemic is likely to cause more job losses than a mere financial crisis would have caused.
1.8.4.1.3. Pro: Stock markets have already begun to show signs of [bouncing back](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51811972) and most of them have already recovered from the shock.
1.8.4.1.3.1. Pro: The Chinese economy [started to recover](https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/chinas-economic-growth-to-bolster-global-recovery-from-covid-19/) from the effects of the virus in December 2020.
1.8.4.1.3.2. Pro: The US stock market hit a [new high](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53745009) in August 2020.
1.8.4.1.3.3. Con: The stock market is not a reflection of the [health](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-27/stock-market-is-not-the-economy-by-any-yardstick) of an economy.
1.8.4.2. Con: Central banks in most countries have made unprecedented interventions in financial markets, through collateralized lending and direct asset purchases. These measures will preserve the [orderly functioning of the financial market](https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp200923.htm).
1.8.4.2.1. Con: As the pandemic continues, central banks will have increasingly [less space for instituting fiscal policies](https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/building-societal-resilience/global-resilience-taken-a-hit.html) that can contain the impact of an economic slowdown.
1.8.4.3. Pro: Most countries have incurred huge [financial debts](https://blogs.worldbank.org/allaboutfinance/covid-19-and-corporate-balance-sheet-vulnerabilities-emerging-markets) in order to finance their responses to the pandemic.
1.8.4.4. Pro: The [S&P 500](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-sandp-500-3305888#:~:text=The%20S%26P%20500%20is%20a,all%20other%20investments%20are%20compared.), which is an index used by investors as a benchmark for the overall market, fell by [34%](https://voxeu.org/article/financial-markets-and-news-about-coronavirus) in March 2020.
1.8.4.4.1. Con: -> See 1.8.4.1.3.2.
1.8.5. Con: The pandemic resulted in high levels of [unemployment](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-18/unemployment-likely-to-remain-high-through-2021-fed-study-says) and this is likely to remain.
1.8.5.1. Con: Companies have incentives to not lay off their employees.
1.8.5.1.1. Pro: Laying off workers during a global crisis may undermine the reputation of a company.
1.8.5.1.1.1. Pro: Some companies have been [heavily criticized](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-hotel-slammed-after-firing-21722233) on social media for laying off workers in the middle of the crisis.
1.8.5.1.1.2. Pro: A company may be perceived as having little job security by prospective employees. This may undermine the ability of the company to attract top talent.
1.8.5.1.1.3. Con: People are likely to understand that companies were compelled to make difficult choices during unprecedented circumstances.
1.8.5.1.1.4. Pro: In the UK, an [online spreadsheet](https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/5dmaak/this-spreadsheet-calls-out-companies-screwing-workers-over-coronavirus) has been compiled to track the behaviour of companies toward their workers during the Covid-19 outbreak. The intention of the spreadsheet is to hold companies accountable.
1.8.5.1.2. Pro: If companies lay off all their workers then when circumstances revert and business resumes, they are more likely to be short-staffed.
1.8.5.1.2.1. Con: Companies can hire new employees.
1.8.5.1.2.1.1. Pro: If there is a risk of companies being short-staffed, they can expedite the typical hiring processes to resolve this issue.
1.8.5.1.2.1.2. Pro: There is an [abundance of labor supply available](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266414/unemployed-persons-worldwide/), indicating that replacing workers will not be a problem.
1.8.5.1.3. Con: Even if companies do have the incentive to keep employees, they may not have the financial capabilities to do so.
1.8.5.1.3.1. Pro: Small businesses [cannot afford](https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/coronavirus-shrm-research-many-small-us-businesses-cant-afford-quarantine.aspx) to pay quarantined employees their full wages.
1.8.5.2. Pro: Rising unemployment might [increase crime rates](https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/53294/theeffectsofunemploymentoncimerates.pdf) in many countries.
1.8.5.2.1. Pro: A 1% increase in the unemployment rate increases the rate of violent crime by 14.3 per 100,000 inhabitants in the US. \([p. 12](https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/53294/theeffectsofunemploymentoncimerates.pdf)\)
1.8.5.2.2. Pro: In India, unemployment due to COVID-19 has forced many people to [resort to criminal activities](https://www.dw.com/en/india-coronavirus-crime/a-54198329) to make ends meet.
1.8.5.2.3. Con: In the first half of 2020, the incidence of rape decreased by [17.8%](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/overview-of-preliminary-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2020) in the US.
1.8.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.5.1.
1.8.5.4. Con: Unemployment rates due to the pandemic would depend on the [safeguards and measures](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41301-020-00262-0) governments institute for the protection of jobs.
1.8.5.4.1. Pro: Governments can introduce job retention programmes to prevent radical increases in unemployment.
1.8.5.4.1.1. Pro: The UK government has rolled out the [Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme) to help employers pay employees and avoid having to lay them off during the lockdown.
1.8.5.4.1.2. Pro: Part of the US government's $2 trillion Coronavirus rescue package includes a [$367 billion employee retention fund](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/covid19-furlough-employers-workers-support-global/) for small businesses.
1.8.5.4.1.3. Pro: Many European countries have implemented schemes so that employees are [only temporarily laid-off](https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/how-europe-is-supporting-workers-in-the-coronavirus-outbreak/).
1.8.5.4.2. Con: Most government measures concerning employment have been limited to jobs in the [formal sector](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41301-020-00262-0#Fn8) even though it accounts for a minority of the working population in the world.
1.8.5.4.2.1. Pro: It is [estimated](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41301-020-00262-0) that over 55% in Latin America, 65% in sub-Saharan Africa, and around 1.3 billion people in the Asia-Pacific region work in the informal sector.
1.8.5.5. Pro: The [closure of cultural institutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_the_arts_and_cultural_heritage) means cultural workers like actors or musicians are out of work.
1.8.5.5.1. Pro: As reluctance to gather becomes a social norm, cultural events will become difficult to organize and fill; many will be reluctant to be in a crowd.
1.8.5.5.2. Pro: Most of these groups are [already working quite precariously](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46356689) and often without a financial safety net.
1.8.5.5.2.1. Pro: Due to this immediate loss in jobs, many workers are seeking employment [in other sectors](https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/freelancers/freelancer-exodus-on-horizon/5149080.article) that they deem more secure, which will result in a shortfall of workers in cultural institutions.
1.8.5.5.3. Con: Cultural workers will not be out of work long because those who organise cultural events are likely to restart events as soon as possible so that those working in events are employed and have a source of income from employment.
1.8.5.5.3.1. Con: It is projected that even when events resume, the demand for cultural labour [will be lower](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09548963.2020.1802202?scroll=top&needAccess=true) than its original levels.
1.8.5.5.3.2. Con: If the widely promoted policy of '[social distancing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/16/social-distancing-coronavirus/)' lasts for a significant period, those who typically work in events will be out of work for a long period.
1.8.5.5.4. Con: The government [is subsidising](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/03/coronavirus-governments-support-workers-sick-pay-loans) the wages of workers in the events industry.
1.8.5.5.4.1. Pro: At a meeting in April 2020, the ministers of Culture and Media in Europe [reiterated their commitment](https://eu2020.hr/Home/OneNews?id=240) to providing support and funding for creating programs through the SURE model.
1.8.5.5.4.2. Pro: In March 2020, [€500 Million](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/berlin-senate-bailout-process-1820982) were distributed to artists as part of the grant program in Germany.
1.8.5.6. Pro: The number of people unemployed in the US was [14.2 million](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/11/unemployment-rose-higher-in-three-months-of-covid-19-than-it-did-in-two-years-of-the-great-recession/) in June 2020.
1.8.5.6.1. Pro: [Unemployment claims](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/19/coronavirus-drives-up-unemployment-claims-137067) were rising sharply in the US as early as March 2020.
1.8.5.7. Pro: Soaring unemployment rates will likely put pressure on the government to make unemployment benefits more comprehensive.
1.8.5.7.1. Pro: Australia, Canada, Ireland, UK, and US have all [expanded their unemployment benefits](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/coronavirus-unemployment-five-nation-comparison.pdf) to help workers through the crisis \(p. 16-17\).
1.8.6. Pro: Many governments have introduced economic stimulus packages that have minimized the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.8.6.1. Pro: [Stimulus packages](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stimulus-package.asp) reinvigorate the economy by providing a set of favourable economic conditions that encourage spending.
1.8.6.1.1. Con: Economic stimulus packages have not protected the economy in the past.
1.8.6.1.1.1. Pro: [Obama's stimulus package](http://Obama's stimulus package after the 2008 financial crisis was unsuccessful, indicating economic stimulus packages​ do not work.) after the 2008 financial crisis was unsuccessful. This indicates that economic stimulus packages do not work.
1.8.6.1.1.2. Pro: Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt both introduced economic stimulus packages during the 1930s, yet the [Great Depression endured for 12 years](https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2016/08/26/debunking-government-stimulus/#14767b984554).
1.8.6.1.1.3. Con: A review of the stimulus package enacted in Australia after the 2008 global financial crisis suggests that the fiscal stimulus was quite effective in reversing the adverse impacts of the financial crisis \([p. 28](http://uggest that the fiscal stimulus was quite effective in reversing the adverse impactsof the GFC,)\).
1.8.6.1.2. Pro: Consumer spending is the single [most important factor](https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-spending-definition-and-determinants-3305917) driving the US economy.
1.8.6.2. Con: Those who are economically vulnerable might not be able to benefit from these stimulus packages.
1.8.6.2.1. Pro: Undocumented migrants and mixed-status families, often among the lowest paid workers and a [significantly vulnerable](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/05/undocumented-immigrants-coronavirus/) demographic, will [not be helped](https://calmatters.org/commentary/stimulus-checks-for-the-coronavirus-pandemic-wont-be-sent-to-my-family/) from these stimulus packages.
1.8.6.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.8.5.1.4.1.
1.8.6.2.3. Con: Many [countries in the EU](https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020-05-10/pandemic-shows-contrasts-between-us-european-safety-nets) have instituted stimulus packages that address the economic needs of people belonging to vulnerable groups.
1.8.6.2.3.1. Pro: Ireland introduced the Pandemic Unemployment Payments in March 2020, and people who find themselves unemployed on account of the pandemic are still availing them in [January 2021.](https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0105/1187758-pandemic-unemployment-payment-numbers/)
1.8.6.3. Con: The repeated waves of infection make it challenging for the stimulus to be able to prevent economic decline.
1.8.6.3.1. Pro: Economic stimulus works by [injecting](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-stimulus.asp) the private sector with money to encourage spending. This is consumer-driven, something which is impeded by repeated lockdowns.
1.8.6.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.8.5.1.4.
1.8.6.5. Con: The financial spending required for stimulus will have a long-lasting negative impact on economies in many countries.
1.8.6.5.1. Pro: Governments have provided stimulus packages through over-spending. This has caused a [fiscal deficit](https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-response-will-drive-up-global-public-debt-to-a-record-imf-says-11602676800) and the resulting debt will negatively impact economic growth and health.
1.8.6.5.1.1. Pro: [In June 2020](https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14891), the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the UK showed that stimulus spending would produce a budget deficit of over 20% of GDP this year, and a debt-to-GDP ratio of nearly 120% by 2024-25.
1.8.6.5.1.2. Pro: [Fiscal deficits](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021015/what-effect-fiscal-deficit-economy.asp) through overspending can harm long-term economic growth and stability.
1.8.6.5.1.3. Con: [Fiscal deficit](https://www.imf.org/external/np/g20/110220.htm) in most countries are expected to shrink once the pandemic recedes and economies begin to recover.
1.8.6.5.1.4. Pro: By October 2020, the [US budget deficit](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/16/924582156/-3-1-trillion-pandemic-spending-drives-the-federal-budget-deficit-to-a-record) due to spending on pandemic-related stimulus packages reached a record of $3.1 trillion.
1.8.6.5.2. Con: Supporting individuals and businesses through [stimulus](https://blogs.imf.org/2020/11/02/the-crisis-is-not-over-keep-spending-wisely/) is the only to protect the economy from long-term damage to its health and resilience.
1.8.6.5.2.1. Pro: Without a stimulus, there would be unemployment, and bankruptcies caused by the state's response to the pandemic. This will decrease the [likelihood of economic recovery](https://blogs.imf.org/2020/11/02/the-crisis-is-not-over-keep-spending-wisely/).
1.8.6.6. Pro: In July 2020, the UK introduced a [£30 billion](https://www.france24.com/en/20200708-uk-announces-%C2%A330bn-covid-19-stimulus-package-aimed-at-young-people) fiscal stimulus package.
1.8.6.6.1. Con: The UK's fiscal stimulus package will substantially [increase government borrowing](https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14771), which will have a long-term impact on the UK economy.
1.8.6.6.1.1. Pro: By November 2020, the UK government's borrowing was [the highest](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/21/uk-public-finances-pushed-into-36bn-deficit-as-inflation-rises-covid) it had been in the past 50 years.